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 Protests Oregon AG Discovery Request

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the tough-pill-to-swallow dept.

Businesses 172

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is apparently having an allergic reaction to the request by the State Attorney General of Oregon for information about the RIAA's investigative tactics. The request came in Arista v. Does 1-17, the Portland, Oregon, case targeting students at the University of Oregon. Not only are the record companies opposing the request (pdf), they're asking the Judge not to even read it. (pdf)"

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

Right... (5, Funny)

Mesa MIke (1193721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705520)

Nevermind our tactics, just give us the convictions (oh, and the penalty money too) we seek!

Re:Right... (4, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705580)

"As punishment, all titles the the RIAA represent are now in the public domain. Next case."

That would end it once and for all.

Re:Right... (5, Funny)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705628)

"As punishment, all titles the the RIAA represent are now in the public domain. Next case."

Dood, share what you're smoking over there. Yeah, it's a great idea, but it's as likely as me becoming Miss America. For one thing, I'm in my 50's, and for another, I think they'd freak at the beard...

Re:Right... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705726)

When some vegetable can become president of a nation, why shouldn't a bearded guy in his 50s become Miss America?

Re:Right... (4, Insightful)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705858)

no one said s/he was a guy...

Re:Right... (1, Informative)

Palpitations (1092597) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706206)

Note to mods: When I lived in Portland, I knew a real bearded woman. I'm pretty sure this should be insightful, not funny...

You meet some interesting people when you know some of Ken Kesey's old friends.

Re:Right... (0, Offtopic)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707310)

Note to mods: When I lived in Portland, I knew a real bearded woman.

Funny you say that. When I lived in Portland I also knew a bearded woman. The thing is, the Portland I lived in is in Victoria, Australia. I'm guessing you were in Oregon, USA?

Re:Right... (1, Funny)

Wordplay (54438) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706226)

On the other hand, if you're on Slashdot and you're going to guess...

Re:Right... (1)

mr_josh (1001605) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706610)

Hey, that's my pickup line...

Re:Right... (1)

ZWithaPGGB (608529) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706580)

Are you referring to FDR?

Re:Right... (5, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706802)

Of course we have a vegetable for president, half the population were specifically voting against the fruits.

-

Re:Right... (4, Funny)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705854)

Stallman?! Is that you?

Re:Right... (4, Funny)

macshit (157376) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705880)

it's as likely as me becoming Miss America. For one thing, I'm in my 50's, and for another, I think they'd freak at the beard...

Emphasize the talent angle, I suppose.

Re:Right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21706214)

And for the love of god, stay away from the swimsuit competition. Please.

Re:Right... (1)

Lunarsight (1053230) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705934)

"As punishment, all titles the the RIAA represent are now in the public domain. Next case."

Dood, share what you're smoking over there. Yeah, it's a great idea, but it's as likely as me becoming Miss America. For one thing, I'm in my 50's, and for another, I think they'd freak at the beard...



I agree. It is unlikely that this will happen...

Besides, a more fitting punishment would be to stuff everybody affiliated with the RIAA aboard a rocket ship, and send it hurtling into the Sun.

I'd gladly pay NASA to do this.

Re:Right... (2, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706168)

No, the correct punishment is to lock them in a mirror and send it hurtling through space.

Re:Right... (5, Funny)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705936)

For one thing, I'm in my 50's, and for another, I think they'd freak at the beard...
Mom?!

Re:Right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21706008)

"Dood, share what you're smoking over there... I'm in my 50's..."

Dude, remembering how to sound cool is they second thing to go when you get older, I hear.

Re:Right... (1)

twentynine (984768) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706230)

i dunno, mr. burns won miss teen springfield...

Re:Right... (1)

akijikan (994811) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706370)

You're 50 and you said dood?

Re:Right... (1)

zenkonami (971656) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706630)

They also really brought home that "F" word.

Re:Right... (3, Insightful)

zenkonami (971656) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706614)

Yeah, it's a great idea, but it's as likely as me becoming Miss America.
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GOURD?

Dood, share what you're smoking over there...For one thing, I'm in my 50's, and for another, I think they'd freak at the beard...
Ahh...you are. Nevermind...but this

"As punishment, all titles the the RIAA represent are now in the public domain. Next case."
...from the previous poster is absurd. It's not a good idea. The fact is a lot of artists would lose a lot of money, and we're not talking income here necessarily. Many of them may not be able to "pay off" their advances.

Kill the RIAA? Sure. Kill the major labels and their evil machine? Absolutely. But somebody please think of the childr...er...artists!

Re:Right... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707252)

That would depend on whether the labels were considered liable for the losses incurred by the artists in question. It might actually be a good thing overall. If artists were allowed to treat every download as a lost sale (the RIAA's argument, after all) then they would receive the 2 or whatever their contract says per download from the label, until the label ran out of money. Their debts would be cleared very quickly and the labels would then be forced to sell them back their contracts. The ones with real talent could then go on to release albums without the backing of a label, bolstered by the fact that millions of people have heard their music via free download.

Re:Right... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705704)

The internet should have been IPX/SPX and not TCP/IP and you fucking know it.

Re:Right... (5, Informative)

digitig (1056110) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707104)

Did you actually read the RAs? Oh, of course not, this is /.

Had you read them, you would have seen that the issue is that the University has raised new issues at a point in the process where new issues are not permitted, because it wouldn't give the RIAA proper opportunity to reply to them. What the RIAA is asking is that either the new issues are struck down without consideration or they be given the right of reply.

The RIAA seems to do some pretty dreadful things, but this one looks perfectly reasonable to me.

FAGGOTS (0, Troll)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705522)

OH GOD I LOVE FAGGOTS

Re:FAGGOTS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705676)

penis in your butt

in and out, in and out till it shoots man mustard all inside your poopy colon

Re:FAGGOTS (0, Offtopic)

Blittzed (657028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705714)

Wow! I suspected that the RIAA read /. but I didn't think they posted here too..

Re:FAGGOTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21706488)

Bigot. You hate the RIAA because of their chosen lifestyle.

Re:FAGGOTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705976)

This is slashdot, isn't that a given?

Cornered (5, Interesting)

psued0ch (1200431) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705532)

The RIAA is a cornered beast that is under increasing scrutiny, of course it will react like this in response to a federal case. Not to mention it is a profit-hungry corporation just like all the rest.

Re:Cornered (4, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705682)

I wouldn't say they're cornered, exactly, but there does appear to be a rising tide of awareness among the judiciary of the RIAA's tactics. Doesn't seem like they're getting rubberstamped as often as they use to be.

Re:Cornered (0, Offtopic)

jeffy210 (214759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705806)

"One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason - but one cannot have both."
Your sig reminds me of this phrase: "Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for the night, set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Re:Cornered (1)

ilovecheese (301274) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706426)

I think they call that "phear".....

the secret! (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705536)

They actually dressed up one of their 40 year old asshole lawyers as a college student and had him break into dorms in the middle of the night and check for illegal p2p downloads on students' computers! *gasp* Uh oh, the secret's out now hehehe

Break out the RAID... (1)

talon_262 (514764) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705548)

Just like cockroaches scattering when the light's turned on, the RIAA is trying to scuttle this motion for discovery because they know that their ass will be grass...

Re:Break out the RAID... (1)

GregPK (991973) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705608)

I think, that the discovery will find several illegal tatics being used by the RIAA. Should cause quite a ruckus. After the dust settles, all will be good again. :-D

Re:Break out the RAID... (1)

DavidShor (928926) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706530)

Any reason they can't just destroy the evidence?

Re:Break out the RAID... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706608)

Destruction of evidence is considered evidence of guilt.

Re:Break out the RAID... (1)

DavidShor (928926) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707028)

I've always been curious about that. How precisely does that work? Is Sovereign immunity the reason why the CIA was able to get away with it?

FROM: Cheney - TO: All WH Staff (1)

Eternal Vigilance (573501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707056)

Destroy all evidence of destruction of evidence.

The REAL RIAA in a nutshell (1)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705570)

...the University appears to argue that the Court should reconsider its Order granting Plaintiffs' leave to take early discovery because the "record shows more intent to harass than anything else," and because Plaintiffs' discovery is supposedly "fairly characterized as a fishing expedition."
It really does feel like the RIAA is nearing its end.

Re:The REAL RIAA in a nutshell (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705600)

It really does feel like the RIAA is nearing its end.
From your mouth to God's ear.

Sur-replies? (3, Interesting)

mbstone (457308) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705616)

Do they have a different version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Oregon under which "sur-replies" to motions are permitted?

Re:Sur-replies? (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705668)

No, but sur-real replies are apparently acceptable.

Re:Sur-replies? (5, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705700)

Do they have a different version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Oregon under which "sur-replies" to motions are permitted?
Good question. No they do not.

However, it is a little know fact that the RIAA lawyers do have a parallel universe law library, in which are housed alternative versions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Copyright Act, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys.

The case law in this parallel universe law library consists chiefly of (a) ex parte cases (i.e. cases where the other party was never notified of the proceedings), (b) default cases (i.e. cases where the other party may or may not have been notified, but never managed to show up), and (c) pro se cases (i.e. cases where the other party could not afford an attorney).

I assume that the existence of this parallel universe law library is a reason why the American Association of Law Libraries has participated in amicus curiae briefs opposing the RIAA's tactics. See, e.g., the amicus curiae brief in Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com] . Because, you see, rather than employ law librarians, the RIAA's library employs baboons.

Re:Sur-replies? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705742)

However, it is a little know fact that the RIAA lawyers do have a parallel universe law library, in which are housed alternative versions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Copyright Act, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys.

So it's true, they live in their own little world without a connection to reality?

Re:Sur-replies? (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705968)

However, it is a little know fact that the RIAA lawyers do have a parallel universe law library, in which are housed alternative versions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Copyright Act, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys.
So it's true, they live in their own little world without a connection to reality?
It sure seems that way sometimes.

Sorry.. (1)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705838)

Your post made me think of a certain Orang-outang Librarian.

Ook

Re:Sur-replies? (2, Funny)

z3d4r (598419) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705882)

Libraries in parallel universe....librarians that are monkeys (sorry, Apes),
its starting to sound like the RIAA are alumni of Unseen University.

I wonder if they have been helping themselves to the Bursars pills?

Re:Sur-replies? (1)

arootbeer (808234) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706026)

Of course. That's what the Oregon AG is trying to prevent them from continuing to do!

Re:Sur-replies? (3, Funny)

rmgrotkierii (190011) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706124)

You my friend are mistaken, the RIAA employees Wolfram & Hart [wikipedia.org] , Attorneys at Law as their legal consul and as such, Wolfram & Hart has access to many different volumes of text the ordinary mortal attorney cannot fathom that exist. And unfortunately they do have a version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that allows sur-replies motions be permitted. They only have to notify the judge as to which version they are quoting from. :) Hope this helps.

Re:Sur-replies? (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706212)

That. is. crap.

This "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" publication should have "This publication supersedes all older versions", and you shouldn't be permitted to pick and choose which versions you're going to use to interpret law.

I guess only in a perfect world.

Re:Sur-replies? (1, Informative)

rmgrotkierii (190011) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706340)

O. M. G.

This was a joke and I was referencing the show "Angel" with WR&H. In the show the law firm has access thousands of supposed ancient texts and other books from the various universes/realities. ARGH. So in essence they could have access to more than one version of the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," alas the joke was lost on you. I am truly sorry for that. :^(

Re:Sur-replies? (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706364)

It's late, and I've been out bar hopping/drinking. I'll make sure someone hits my humor switch back on in the morning ;)

Re:Sur-replies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21706444)

O.M.G.

This was a joke and I was referencing the show "Angel" with WR&H. In the show the law firm has access thousands of supposed ancient texts and other books from the various universes/realities. ARGH. So in essence they could have access to more than one version of the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," alas the joke was lost on you. I am truly sorry for that. :^(
O.M.G.

References from an inconsistent BtVS spin-off show, how could someone miss that? Got any Booker [wikipedia.org] jokes?

Re:Sur-replies? (1)

slugstone (307678) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706482)

That went right over your head. Not even close to get you an hair cut.

This is the end of a typical pro se case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21706306)

07-74701 Yue, et al v. USDC-CAN
11/30/07 FILED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND EXCERCISE OF
SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY WITH ONE VOLUME OF AN APPENDIX,
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. NOTIFIED
REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST OF FILING. (MOATT) [07-74701] (ca)

11/30/07 Filed Dongxiao Yue's emergency motion for expeditious
consideration of petition and stay of summary judgment
motion hearing at the district court (hearing date
12/13/07); served on 11/28/07. (MOATT) (ca)

12/6/07 Filed Real Party in Interest Sun Microsystems, EMC
Corporation, and Darden Restaurants response to
petitioner's emergency motion for stay of summary judgement
motion hearing at the district court w/ declaration of
Jedediah Wakefield; served on 12/6/07. (MOATT) [07-74701]
(lee)

12/7/07 Filed Petitioner Dongxiao Yue's reply in support of
emergency motion for expeditious consideration of petition
for writ of mandamus and exercise of supervisory authority
and stay of summary judgement hearing at the district court
w/ exhibits in support of motion; served on 12/7/07. (MOATT)
[07-74701] (lee)

12/12/07 Order filed: Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case
warrants the intervention of this court by means of the
extraordinary remedy of mandamus. (cite). Accordingly, the
petition is denied. (Terminated on the Merits after
Submission Without Oral Hearing; Denied; Written, Unsigned,
Unpublished. Alfred T. GOODWIN, William A. FLETCHER,
Marsha S. BERZON) [07-74701] (lee)

Re:Sur-replies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21706678)

If only they had employed an orangutan instead!

Re:Sur-replies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21706776)

aren't surreplies covered by local rules? and thus permitted if allowed? (arent surreplies allowed only with leave in most jurisdiction?)
how does OP know enough to know FRCP and not know enough to know that local rules control.

Re:Sur-replies? (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706844)

the RIAA's library employs baboons.

Maybe we can get the Republican Party to go medieval on the RIAA's ass for employing undocumented workers?

-

Re:Sur-replies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705920)

I'm a 2L at a reasonably good law school, and have no effin clue what a surreply is. The word doesn't exist in my PDF copy of the FRCP.

*checking Black's*

Nothing.

Okay... what gives? Is this some weird state thing somewhere? Near as I can tell, it goes like this: P1 Motion, P1 Brief in support of motion, P2 Brief in opposition to motion... P1 Reply?... P2 Surreply?

Re:Sur-replies? (1)

Broken Toys (1198853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707378)

Try Google. The first hit I got was:
"United States' Response to Microsoft's Sur-reply : U.S. v. Microsoft"

If you were using Blacks "surrejoinder" should be in there, same thing.

ps IANAL nor do I play one on TV.

Re:Sur-replies? (1)

david274 (854082) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705952)

Actually, sur-replies are granted by the court when a party moves for leave to file one. They are granted when the party's reply memorandum raises new issues or new facts that have not been raised yet. Basically, courts want to allow each party a chance to reply to any facts or issues that are raised before the court.

Re:The REAL RIAA in a nutshell (1)

LrdDimwit (1133419) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705670)

No, because they're not quoting the Court's rulings, they're quoting things the opposing side said about them. I suspect if you read SCO's briefs and take them as gospel, you will be under the impression that IBM's goose is cooked. The truth is somewhat different. Same applies here: the Universiy can say just about anything in opposing the RIAA's moves. It's what they can get to STICK that matters.

Re:The REAL RIAA in a nutshell (1)

Bega (684994) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706272)

I can't help it, but I come to think of a certain quote from Portal.

"The experiment is nearing its conclusion. Cake and grief counseling is available at the end of this test."

Damn Lawyers. (4, Insightful)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705576)

Not only are the record companies opposing the request, they're asking the Judge not to even read it.

Isn't this standard lawyer behavior? Objecting to everything the other side does?

Re:Damn Lawyers. (5, Funny)

ThaNooch (1186931) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705604)

I object to this motion on the grounds that it may allow the defense to finally prove that I'm a heinous bitch.

Re:Damn Lawyers. (5, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705618)

I object to this motion on the grounds that it may allow the defense to finally prove that I'm a heinous bitch.
I know I full well deserve to be modded down for this but...

:)

Good one.

Re:Damn Lawyers. (5, Insightful)

rts008 (812749) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706076)

Ray, instead of being modded down for that reply, we should mod you up both for your work in this area and for submitting the article.

BTW, I may have mentioned this before, but thanks for your efforts here, and for causing me to rethink my view on lawyers. (the subject line of this thread says it all-'re:Damn Lawyers') You are a gem.
It's easy to lose sight of some of the good trees in the dark, creepy forest of our legal system nowadays.

As a side note, I have decided to contribute my tax return $$'s to EFF and several similar ongoing efforts we all benefit from.
I call on all /.'ers to make a small, similar effort. If we have the numbers and power to reduce servers to a molten ruin (the /. effect!), then there are enough of us to throw $5-10 bucks at the grunts on the front line- come on y'all, let's show the world the mighty power that is /.!!!
Yeah, a little over the top, but this IS a pep talk!

Re:Damn Lawyers. (2, Interesting)

Symbolis (1157151) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706158)

...and I just spent the last of my mod points earlier. :( Someone mod this one for me?

Re:Damn Lawyers. (3, Interesting)

rts008 (812749) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706308)

Thanks for the thought, but I cannot seem to harm my Karma on /., so I don't really worry about mod points.

Thank /. for the 'preview' button! wow!

I don't know that I really expressed myself well above. The last part seemed too cavalier for what I intended.

I don't try too much to pay attention to the mod's to my replies, as it doesn't seem to make much difference to my Karma. Perhaps I inadvertently balance the good, the bad, and the fuggly in my replies after reaching the "Excellent Karma" rating I have. Sometimes I can be rather an asshat- especially when I've been drinking. (which is frequent- I like to relax with some good beer after getting off work at 2300 hrs.--if you doubt this, just enter my user name and "slashdot" in Google search!- and yes, I am most of my way through a sixpack of Guinness Extra Stout right this moment)

As far as Ray Beckerman (NewYorkCountryLawer) goes, I meant every word I typed. I have made him one of my (few) /. 'friends' for several reasons:
1. As a 'friend', his posts are "+" rated so that I can see them at my current settings. He always has something to say that is worth listening to whether you agree with him or not.
2. I admire and respect his work on our behalf. (not just the /. crowd, but media lovers everywhere) and envy his saeemingly superpower energy to juggle all the things he is doing! He even takes the time to keep us here up to date, and gives us his insider type insight without crossing the line of trying to lawyer or preach to us.
3. He backs his play in real life- 'puts his money where his mouth is'. Yes, I'm sure he is a successful attorney in the usual parameters, but he is one of the few who 'dare go where eagles fear to tread'(bad paraphrase).
4.?????
5. Profit!!! (Sorry, this IS /. after all!)

This post brought to you by an idiot powered by Guinness!!!

"Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!"

"Huh? What? Damn, thought I was pissing on my own shrubs...sorry neighbor! I'll just go home now."

"Er, uh, could you point me towards my house? Most obliged!" *staggers off*

Re:Damn Lawyers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21706622)

...all-'re:Damn Lawyers') You are a gem.
It's easy to lose sight of some of the good trees in the dark, creepy forest of our legal system nowadays.


It's easy to hate lawyers, hell just look around, watch the news, read a news paper.

Until you need one.

Re:Damn Lawyers. (1, Insightful)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706816)

99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

-

Re:Damn Lawyers. (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706178)

ThaNooch, NewYorkCountryLawyer, et al vs the People Who Take Everything Seriously

Never thought when I started visiting this site that I'd spend so much time laughing my ass off.

And in response to my esteemed opponent here today to represent the RIAA, might I respectfully point out that I got yer copyright violation right here.

Re:Damn Lawyers. (2, Insightful)

Ronin441 (89631) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706336)

Dude, you're not exactly hurting for karma.

Re:Damn Lawyers. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705842)

Lawyer: "I expect the court to stop proceedings."
Judge: "Heck, why?"
Lawyer: "Because else I'd lose the case, duh."

Re:Damn Lawyers. (3, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705750)

No, at least not with smart lawyers. Judges tend to get annoyed with it and shoot your objections down by default after a while, even when they're legit.

Re:Damn Lawyers. (1)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706462)

I heard from a lawyer relative that the smart judges like to give people rope to hang themselves with.

It's very frustrating when you're a lawyer on the opposite side since it seems like the judge is always on the opponent's side, but the judge will keep letting the smartass get deeper and deeper until they've blocked themselves from every possible avenue of escape, then the judge pulls the trapdoor out from underneath them.

Re:Damn Lawyers. (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706826)

Judges tend to get annoyed with it and shoot your objections down by default after a while, even when they're legit.

Shhhhhh! You're revealing SCO's deep dark secret strategy for dragging their case out through multiple appeals.

-

Re:Damn Lawyers. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707486)

So? Did they claim copyright over that legal gambit, too?

Re:Damn Lawyers. (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706032)

Not only are the record companies opposing the request, they're asking the Judge not to even read it.
Isn't this standard lawyer behavior? Objecting to everything the other side does?

 
It's not standard practice for judges to take orders on what they may any may not do except from judges on higher ranked courts. Anyone else trying to order a judge around just irritates the heck out of said judge.

So not a lawyer... (1)

NecroPuppy (222648) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705642)

But wouldn't the judge not reading the request be grounds for appeal?

Re:So not a lawyer... (5, Informative)

The Empiricist (854346) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705824)

Striking something is not quite the same as not even reading it. What Arista records seems to be saying is that the University of Oregon added new arguments in a reply memorandum and that these new arguments should not be considered by the court.

When a party in a case wants the court to do something, that party often provides a memorandum in support of the requested action. This support brief provides the arguments as to why the court should take action. The opposing party then has an opportunity to counter these arguments by providing arguments as to why the court should not take action. This is the response brief. At this point, the party that asked the court to do something can counter the arguments made by the opposing party. This is the reply brief. Then the court makes a decision.

The party that asked the court to do something generally cannot add new arguments into the reply memorandum. That party may reaffirm its original arguments or try to shoot holes in the opposing party's arguments, but new arguments are generally not allowed. The reason for this is that the opposing party no longer has an opportunity to respond to arguments before the court makes a decision.

If the party that asked the court to do something were allowed to make new arguments, then it would make sense to withhold the best arguments until the reply brief is filed. This would tilt the outcome to the party making the request, which would lead to parties making a lot of requests (it is bad enough now, but it could be a lot worse).

The reality is that procedural matters are an important part of our legal system. A judge could be required to retry a case if an argument was improperly considered or improperly dismissed. Some scrutiny has to be applied, especially when the issue of whether to consider an argument is raised.

The judge would probably read the University of Oregon's reply carefully to determine whether new arguments were raised or not. If new arguments were raised, then the judge might very well strike the new arguments or even the entire reply, thus basing the decision on just the support and response briefs. If the arguments in the reply are not new (or simply shoot holes in Arista's response), then the judge would not strike the reply and make a decision based on all three briefs.

Of course, some research into the specific procedures of the District Court for the District of Oregon is necessary to fully understand the situation, but that seems to be the gist of what is going on.

Re:So not a lawyer... (1)

iabervon (1971) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706280)

It does seem like the AG's request is procedurally bogus; I'm not even sure that the judge is permitted to follow the request in that document, because it's part of a motion to do something else. In fact, it's so out-of-line that it looks to me like somebody filed the document with the wrong title or something. The argument looks like a motion to compel discovery, not a reply memorandum in support of a motion to quash a subpoena. I think the judge's options are to quash the subpoena, not quash it, or not handle the motion at this time, and the judge can't rule that the RIAA has to turn over information unless the AG actually files a motion requesting that, rather than tossing a request for it into some other memorandum.

Discovery "nonevidence" confidential? (4, Insightful)

redelm (54142) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705784)

This brings up the rather good point that civil discovery is a startlingly invasive process conducted by people who are hostile. While some discovery leads to evidence which is admitted and becomes public, the vast bulk does not.


Some sorts of safeguards are required for this material. Traditionally, this has been up to attornies having professional ethics. A dubious proposition in some cases. Perhaps some sort of "fruit of the poisoned vine" is required for civil evidence.

The TRUTH about slashdot! (0, Flamebait)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705786)

Imagine a giant penis flying towards your mouth, and there's nothing you can do about it. And you're like "Oh man, I'm gonna have to suck this thing", and you brace yourself to suck this giant penis. But then, at the last moment, it changes trajectory and hits you in the eye. You think to yourself "Well, at least I got that out of the way", but then the giant penis rears back and stabs your eye again, and again, and again. Eventually, this giant penis is penetrating your gray matter, and you begin to lose control of your motor skills. That's when the giant penis slaps you across the cheek, causing you to fall out of your chair. Unable to move and at your most vulnerable, the giant penis finally lodges itself in your anus, where it rests uncomfortably for 4, maybe 5 hours. That's what using Slashdot is like.

Re:The TRUTH about slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21705884)

I presume you speak from personal experience. Seriously though. This is how you want to spend your time and energy?!

Re:The TRUTH about slashdot! (1)

Asshat_Nazi_v2.0 (989409) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705964)

no. yes. in that order.

What?! (2, Insightful)

toppavak (943659) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705856)

Where's the mafiaa tag???

Read it, read it all (4, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21705860)

The question that I haven't seen anyone pose yet is if the claims by the RIAA attorneys are valid. Is it permitted under Oregon rules to raise the items that were raised in the University's reply? Are the seven different points all just meaningless drivel or is there something real there?

I don't know. It does not seem to be completely without merit and the University's reply seems to contain a bunch of material that is utterly irrelevalent. Certainly when arguing for the quashing of discovery bringing up opinions about what the plantiff's motivations may or may not be is not relevant to the issue at hand. Implying (or stating) that the plantiff is "spying" on the Does hardly seems to be on point in such a reply either.

Re:Read it, read it all (4, Informative)

eddeye (85134) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706838)

The description in the summary about asking the judge not to read it is grossly misleading. The linked filing is nothing but a run-of-the-mill procedural issue.

What normally happens in court is a petitioner files a Motion, the respondent files a Response, and finally the petitioner files a Reply. Then the judge decides the issue. These are the procedural rules of litigation. The petitioner isn't allowed to make new arguments in the Reply. All their arguments must be made in the initial Motion so that the respondent has a chance to address them in the Response. The Reply gives the petitioner a final chance to address the respondent's Response arguments.

Here's what happened: University filed a motion to quash. RIAA filed their Reply. University filed a Response, which (according to the RIAA) contains new arguments. The second linked filing by the RIAA says hey that's unfair. Either ignore the new arguments that we didn't get to address, or give us a chance to address them (the Surreply in the first link). It's a perfectly legitimate request. If the University included new arguments, they broke the rules here. Either way, it's no big deal. The judge will most likely just consider the RIAA's Surreply in deciding the motion to quash. No harm, no foul. It happens all the time in civil litigation.

Fuck the RIAA! (2, Insightful)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706072)

I think this deserves an insightful mod. :)

Pfff (3, Funny)

tsa (15680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706200)

I'm getting tired of articles about the RIAA. But I also keep being amazed about how an organization can be that clueless and detached from the real world. Anyway, wake me when they're being dismantled and cease to exist, OK?

Re:Pfff (2, Interesting)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706288)

I'm getting tired of articles about the RIAA. But I also keep being amazed about how an organization can be that clueless and detached from the real world.

As long as they have the legal fees they'll be in business. They're in this for the quick buck and to build enough precedents to haul in front of their bought and paid for Congresscritters to show that 'there is a serious problem and something must be done'. Their solution of course is to buy legislation to loot anybody they can target, with the taxpayer footing the bill. After all, it's cheaper for them to have the government do their dirty work and just cash the checks.

And no, they're not clueless, they're actually looking down the road a couple years to perpetual copyright, elimination of fair use, and all kinds of other nasty things that'll assure them of income whether they have a product worth buying or not.

Re:Pfff (1)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706314)

If you want to spend the next 10 years in a comatose state why don't you just start drinking instead of making excuses like "The RIAA made me do it"?

Class - thanks :-) (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707260)

LOL

Darth: You don't need to read that brief... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706216)

...they're asking the Judge not to even read it...

The RIAA also wants the judge to put his fingers in his ears and say, "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you, nah, nah, nah...", whenever the Oregon AG speaks.

SCO vs RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21706510)

SCO vs RIAA

Is anyone else thinking this is on it's way, or am I crazy?

Re:SCO vs RIAA (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 6 years ago | (#21706770)

What, SCO suing the RIAA for stealing the business practice of suing?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?