 vigilg
join:2006-09-07
Desert Hot Springs, CA | Gasping For Money The RIAA is just gasping for every little opportunity it sees to grab money. If this does not work, they will find some other way. | |
|
 |  major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | Re: Gasping For Money said by vigilg:The RIAA is just gasping for every little opportunity it sees to grab money. If this does not work, they will find some other way. Agreed. Gasping for money and grasping at whatever end run around due process of law that they think they will get away with. Any organization/school that gives in to these strong arm tactics and surrenders student information should suffer the wrath of the students. Are ya listening Student Government Reps?? Get off your asses and organize an official protest and submit it to the trustees of the school board and let them know that you have greater concerns beyond the BMW Daddy will buy you and watching Chumping for Trump.
--
The Toll
| |
|
| |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Gasping For Money said by major marco:Gasping for money and grasping at whatever end run around due process of law that they think they will get away with. The sad part of this is that they are not committing an end run around due process of law. Their tactics, while objectionable, are entirely legal. Unless the Constitution is amended so that defendants in lawsuits have the same protections as those accused in criminal proceedings, the **AA will continue to engage in these legal activities.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
2 edits | Re: Gasping For Money said by pnh102:The sad part of this is that they are not committing an end run around due process of law. So you believe that it is entirely legal for entity C to harass and/or threaten to serve a lawsuit upon A in order to get information from A regarding B?
Irrespective of either criminal or civil law, it doesn't work that way. Entity C has to first serve a subpoena on A for those records on entity B. That's called due process of law, and, in this particular matter, since money is involved that entity C is calling a "settlement," entity A is entirely within its right to deny entity C any records it may possess on B. Entity A can confidently tell entity C to go piss up a rope and/or get a warrant and/or issue a subpoena.
--
The Toll
| |
|
| | | | | | Re: Gasping For Money In this case, sadly, that depends upon the University exercising it's due process rights, since the apparent (innocent until proven guilty, of course) infringement happens on their servers. Because some Universities don't, it's up to the student to choose another school who will stick up for due process and their individual rights.
Make no mistake, the RIAA is doing all it can to subvert the law to get what they want, which is why they earned the image of thugs, and why due process should apply for all colleges automatically, especially those who receive any public funding. The fact that some colleges are allowing the RIAA in with the red carpet treatment should be an alarm to students. Every single one of these suits should be fought with as much impunity, and care for individual rights as possible. And students who want their rights cared for need to use more research and be more selective about where they attend, to get public funding cut off for those who cater to corporate interests before individual rights. | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by major marco:So you believe that it is entirely legal for entity C to harass and/or threaten to serve a lawsuit upon A in order to get information from A regarding B? It is 100% legal.
Any person or entity in the USA can legally sue anyone else for any reason, regardless of merit. Of course, such lawsuits can be declared frivolous or can be dismissed outright, but the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he/she is not liable. Of course, that means "lawyering up" and spending tons of money to defend oneself in court.
Someone else said this once, and it applies here perfectly... There's a reason it is called the "legal system" and not the "justice system."
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Gasping For Money said by pnh102:... Someone else said this once, and it applies here perfectly... There's a reason it is called the "legal system" and not the "justice system." yes indeed. I have learned the hard way that in the American legal system, justice is for those that can afford it. You pay nothing and you are not likely to get any justice; if you only pay a little, you only get a little justice; complete justice is very expensive. | |
|
| | | | | |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | Re: Gasping For Money said by nasadude:yes indeed. I have learned the hard way that in the American legal system, justice is for those that can afford it. You pay nothing and you are not likely to get any justice; if you only pay a little, you only get a little justice; complete justice is very expensive. The Golden Rule(not the bible version): Those who have the gold, rule!! And this version of the rule has applied throughout recorded history.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Gasping For Money said by Romney2012:said by nasadude:yes indeed. I have learned the hard way that in the American legal system, justice is for those that can afford it. You pay nothing and you are not likely to get any justice; if you only pay a little, you only get a little justice; complete justice is very expensive. The Golden Rule(not the bible version): Those who have the gold, rule!! And this version of the rule has applied throughout recorded history. Funny, I don't think that is what Our Founding Fathers intended. You finally posted something that makes sense. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by pnh102:It is 100% legal. Any person or entity in the USA can legally sue anyone else for any reason, regardless of merit. Of course, such lawsuits can be declared frivolous or can be dismissed outright, but the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he/she is not liable. Of course, that means "lawyering up" and spending tons of money to defend oneself in court. Someone else said this once, and it applies here perfectly... There's a reason it is called the "legal system" and not the "justice system." Well, in that case, it would be perfectly legal for me to sue the ISP or a university that decides to give my info up to the RIAA without a subpoena or a court order. If they are so smart to just pony up my info to a private party without my consent, then let THEM pay whatever that party thinks I owe them.
If there is a subpoena and they must cooperate with authorities, then I understand that they have no choice but to give the info up. But if they give it up just because someone says so, they better be prepared to be taken to the cleaners by me.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... | |
|
| | | | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Gasping For Money said by Pirate515:Well, in that case, it would be perfectly legal for me to sue the ISP or a university that decides to give my info up to the RIAA without a subpoena or a court order. You are right. But can you afford to pay for an attorney willing to take on an ISP or University. Unless you can interest the ACLU or some other organization that will do it for free, you better be pretty rich to afford the lawyer fees.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Gasping For Money said by Romney2012:But can you afford to pay for an attorney willing to take on an ISP or University. Or you can represent yourself pro se.
In any case, you are NOT required to have an attorney in order to pursue or defend against a lawsuit. The Clerk of the Court is required (at least according to the current statutes of the 50 states) to advise you of the procedures and forms required in a court of law. You may peruse the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the state equivalents at your leisure. The law libraries in the courthouses of the land are open to the public.
Will people actually take the time and effort to learn this stuff? No, not unless they're going to make a buck off of it. This leads to much amusement when you realize that the very system that runs the life of the nation is ignored, seen as boring, and considered to be something only attornies and legislators have access to. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  manfmmdPremium
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX | Re: Gasping For Money "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client." | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Gasping For Money said by manfmmd:"A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client." Then I guess laywers should find other lawyers to represent them, but for everyone else who finds lawyers too expensive, and are willing to do the legwork, it might be the only choice. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Gasping For Money said by vpoko:Then I guess laywers should find other lawyers to represent them, but for everyone else who finds lawyers too expensive, and are willing to do the legwork, it might be the only choice. If you've never seen court, yes, lawyers do hire lawyers for serious cases filed against them. Then again, if it's a clear fly-by-night baseless suit, then a lawyer might just be their own represenation to dismiss a clearly frivolous suit. | |
|
| | | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | said by pnh102:Any person or entity in the USA can legally sue anyone else for any reason, regardless of merit. Of course, such lawsuits can be declared frivolous or can be dismissed outright, but the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that he/she is not liable. Of course, that means "lawyering up" and spending tons of money to defend oneself in court. Someone else said this once, and it applies here perfectly... There's a reason it is called the "legal system" and not the "justice system." Filing a frivilous suit in itself is actionable (meaning someone can be sued for filing a frivilous suit), and filing a blatantly frivilous suit could be contempt of court. Threatening to file a frivilous suit can (and has been prosecuted as) blackmail.
Why did you decide that the burden of proof shifts to the respondent? The burden of proof in a civil case is on the claimant. | |
|
| | | | | | | Legal to a point.
In most cases (cases involving strict liability are but one group of exceptions), the plaintiff is still required to prove a prima facie case. Otherwise the defendant can get the claims dismissed "for failure to state a claim" without the burden of proof shifting to the defendant.
Plaintiffs who sue without stating a cognizable claim will often end up paying the defendant's attorneys fees or be sanctioned. Depends on the nature of the claim. | |
|
| | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| said by pnh102:The sad part of this is that they are not committing an end run around due process of law. Their tactics, while objectionable, are entirely legal. So...they're basically like the mob today, but using lawyers instead of threatening bodily harm. Got ya. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Gasping For Money I've said it before and I'll say it again: The RIAA's actions remind me of a Web comic called "Evil, Inc." It's motto is "You can do more evil if you do it legal."
»evil-comic.com/d/20050826.html | |
|
| | | | | said by pnh102:said by major marco:Gasping for money and grasping at whatever end run around due process of law that they think they will get away with. The sad part of this is that they are not committing an end run around due process of law. Their tactics, while objectionable, are entirely legal. Unless the Constitution is amended so that defendants in lawsuits have the same protections as those accused in criminal proceedings, the **AA will continue to engage in these legal activities. Due Process doesn't vanish just because it is a civil case. Even at $11 the University should be saying no unless faced with a subpoena. In any civil case, if you want info to prove your case, get a subpoena. Students might be able to sue the school for invasion of privacy since the school is invading their privacy.
Also, considering this is going throw the mail, it could be against postal laws. Since they are really proving nothing, it could even become Racketeering after so many letters. The RIAA is doing an end-run around the court by (1) creating their own "court" (case numbers and docket?) (2) any lawyer on that letter? (ethics violation of the lawyer who eventually handles it probably--lawsuits or threats are supposed to have counsel's name and contact info and bar #) and (3) settling a supposed "case", without real proof, is tantamount to extortion (we'll sue you if you don't). | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Gasping For Money said by supergirl:Due Process doesn't vanish just because it is a civil case. I never said that it did. Due Process refers to any sort of activity in the legal process, including the ones that unfairly screw over other people.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Gasping For Money Actually, due process rights - even in civil cases - derive from the Fifth Amendment's due process clause: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Your state constitution's due process provisions may be broader and provide greater protection than the Fifth Amendment. | |
|
| | | | | | | Funny, you said this: "The sad part of this is that they are not committing an end run around due process of law. Their tactics, while objectionable, are entirely legal."
That is why I said this: "Due Process doesn't vanish just because it is a civil case."
You forget what you typed?   | |
|
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Gasping For Money said by supergirl:Funny, you said this: "The sad part of this is that they are not committing an end run around due process of law. Their tactics, while objectionable, are entirely legal." That is why I said this: "Due Process doesn't vanish just because it is a civil case." You forget what you typed? I said that they are not committing an end run around due process of law.
Due process of law is being followed. It is just that this facet of due process isn't the "nice thing" that many people make it out to be.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Gasping For Money Yes, they are! | |
|
| | | Unfortunately, what they won't try is to either/both (1) not treat their (former) customers like criminals, and/or (2) not price their products for customers who have nothing but lots of money to spend (aka throw away) on their (crap) products. That would just be too radical of a concept. | |
|
| |
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| Awwwww Poor RIAA. Cant get the mean old colleges to help extort moeny for you. Those big meanies. Now go tell everyone how much money your losing because of file trading but be sure not to provide any real foundation for your claims. Maybe that will win them over. | |
|
| Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  What if RIAA calls Univ bluff and pays for letter distribution
The University of Nebraska, meanwhile, says it's impossible for them to find all of the students targeted, because their system doesn't retain IP logs for longer than a month. The University also wants the RIAA to pay $11 for each letter it processes, stating it takes up valuable staff time. I wonder what Univ of Nebraska would do if the RIAA called their bluff and paid them $11/letter?
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| |  BuriedCaesarIt's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX | Re: What if RIAA calls Univ bluff and pays for letter distributi said by Romney2012:I wonder what Univ of Nebraska would do if the RIAA called their bluff and paid them $11/letter? Keep increasing the price...
"Oh, yeah - postage is going up, right? Gotta add that to the bill.
And then we'll have to tack on this administrative charge...
And don't forget the cost of the envelopes....
And the gas the trucks will use to get to the post office...
Did we mention these people need to eat?" --
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? | |
|
| | | | | Re: What if RIAA calls Univ bluff and pays for letter distributi LOL yah. Hit them like they hit the students. Lab fee, student union fee, fee to process the last 2 fees, pleasure of doing business with us fee... ect. That'll shut em up real fast. | |
|
| | | | | They could attach some DRM to the records and charge them $11 for each computer they touch.
--
Hate your enemies. Save your friends. Find your place. Speak the truth. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| said by Romney2012:I wonder what Univ of Nebraska would do if the RIAA called their bluff and paid them $11/letter? IMHO, $11 is bargain for RIAA -- the school should've asked at least a couple of hundred bucks, the same ways the RIAA used to inflate damages. | |
|
| | cant sue'em all or can we is probably what the RIAA is doing... pay me to do your dirty work ... could be a way for the riaa is out people | |
|
1 edit | Charging for Services All universities should charge the RIAA the privilege of keeping their IP logs for longer than than a month and it should be on a per letter basis like the University of Nebraska is doing.
After all there are costs involved in keeping these records and delegating valuable staff time dealing with these letters. It is good business sense for the university to charge the RIAA for services, just like the university charges students for educational services.
There is no such thing as a free lunch and the RIAA needs to realize that. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | Wonders IF the ISP's struck a deal with delivering information to the RIAA. | |
|
 ShamayimI already have a Messiah.Premium
join:2002-09-23 | Good for them! Translation: F*You, RIAA. YOU Pay US To Send Settlement Letters!
I say charge 'em $500 a pop 
--
"tick...tick...tick..." »www.jtf.org/ | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Then there are others The University of Tennessee apparently decided that it was OK to be slave child of the RIAA.
»www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=6260150
This student should not have settled and just let the RIAA run their course. But she instead chose to pay.
My question is how did the TV station find out about this person? | |
|
|  raydog1Feel SecurePremium
join:2003-07-10
La Vergne, TN | Re: Then there are others This is exactly what the RIAA wants to see. News stories with cute youg students warning others against the dangers of music sharing. Even worse for her is that fact that she had to pay $3000 AND spread the RIAA mantra on her own.
That's what I call double-dipping.
They should send her back a $3000 check and a thank you letter!  | |
|
 JehuPremium
join:2002-09-13
MA
kudos:2 | Does latest campaign end in RIAA legal defeat? I kind of doubt it since, you know, there's no legal action currently...
But why pass up the opportunity to see the same posts we do every day over a technicality like that? | |
|
| | | Re: Does latest campaign end in RIAA legal defeat? said by Jehu:I kind of doubt it since, you know, there's no legal action currently... But why pass up the opportunity to see the same posts we do every day over a technicality like that? Exactly. PMH says something above about "defendants in lawsuits". What lawsuits? What defendants? It is one thing to bring suit and then settle in arbitration or out of court. It is another to use the mere threat of litigation to crowbar sums of money out of people who have not been shown to have broken any laws.
There are names for these behaviors:
Extortion. Barratry. There is also Thuggery in there too. | |
|
| |  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | Re: Does latest campaign end in RIAA legal defeat? Sooner or later, they (the RIAA & their lawyers) are
going to encounter a judge that won't automatically toe
the line with them, and then their entire campaign will
unravel. It is already going this way with the Foster
and Santangelo cases.
Their lawyers need to be disbarred. This is certainly
unethical behavior by any legal standard, and is more
like mob tactics. So much so that the RIAA are frequently
called the MAFIAA.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot) | |
|
| | | | | Re: Does latest campaign end in RIAA legal defeat? If they lose a case, they lose a case. They can continue doing exactly what they are doing no matter how many individual cases they lose. In order to stop them, they'd have to be sued themselves, and lose. Since what they are doing is not illegal (even though it should be), that won't happen. | |
|
| | | | | I was just thinking of the Santangelo case. Recording Industry vs The People ( »recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ ) ran a story about it yesterday about how the judge has struck down the RIAA's attempt to get it dismissed without prejudice. (Meaning, the RIAA would be able to re-open the lawsuit at any time from a slightly different angle.)
The judge told them that, after two years of discovery, they had to either 1) let the case go to trial so that Santangelo could be found guilty or innocent or 2) let it be dismissed with prejudice so that Santangelo would basically be found not guilty by default and could try to sue for attorney's fees.
As for the other case, it looks like the judge is pushing the RIAA to turn over their attorney fee records in order to determine how much Foster gets for her attorney fees.
Hopefully more people take these cases to court because it looks like the RIAA goes after most people with little to no evidence backing up their claims. They rely on the hope that their legal threats will be so scary that people will take the "quick and easy" settlement regardless of the accused's guilt or innocence. | |
|
| | | | Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | Re: Does latest campaign end in RIAA legal defeat? In both the Santangelo and Foster cases, the RIAA is doing
everything they possibly can to keep both of them going
without a final resolution, and continuing to harass those
involved in the process. In short they are playing a legal
game of brinksmanship here.
»p2pnet.net/story/11738
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot) | |
|
2 edits | At my school..... Ohio University went along 100% with subpoena too. To make things worse, the students accused got in trouble with the university judiciaries as well!! Ohio U's president is terrible.
Here's a source and quote from the local paper, it's so funny to see it happen around me. The uni is doing absolutely nothing to help students in trouble, just making it worse.
"While OU has offered advice to students picked up in RIAA's net, it cannot help them any further, and actually is referring these students to campus judiciaries for allegedly misusing the campus network."
»athensnews.com/index.php?action=···id=27714
In case you forgot, Ohio U was #1 in offenses in the first wave of letters. Just recently there was another wave of letters sent out to university students, but Ohio U was lucky enough to escape with 0. (Same news story as above) | |
|
| | Remember kids When you're done paying the pre-settlement fee, the RIAA is "looking forward to future business together." | |
|
| | BIG Mistake I'll bet the RIAA punishes universities who are so arrogant. Copyright law is pretty clear. Failure to stop on-campus Piracy when the universities know it exists can constitute conspiracy in a court of law. I'll bet the U's will regret this FUBAR and expensive decision. | |
|
|  furloniumComputer Over? Virus equals Very Yes?
join:2002-05-08
Bethlehem, PA | Re: BIG Mistake said by LawRules :
I'll bet the RIAA punishes universities who are so arrogant. Copyright law is pretty clear. Failure to stop on-campus Piracy when the universities know it exists can constitute conspiracy in a court of law. I'll bet the U's will regret this FUBAR and expensive decision.
You forgot to mention that the students who get caught for this should go to jail and be raped.
You lose points.
--
»www.myspace.com/intranet
I once had a dream that Sean Connery stayed at my apt., and he had his laptop with Win98 on it, and he knew how to connect to my wireless network. I don't do drugs  | |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | jmn1207, Inc. Perhaps we should all simply corporatize ourselves? Sadly, there would be more protection offered to us if seen as an amorphous entity rather than an individual. | |
|
|
1 edit | Re: jmn1207, Inc.
Can you see me now??? Didn't think so.... | |
|
| | The telling point is That they don't keep records for more than 30 days. That means, the RIAA has to find, and prosecute within that time frame, otherwise I, the student, will just say 'that wasn't my IP address." That goes to show that the university is looking out for it's students, since the 30 day rule means that the students can effectively be 'anonymous'.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: The telling point is said by karlmarx:That goes to show that the university is looking out for it's students, since the 30 day rule means that the students can effectively be 'anonymous'. Actually, it means the university doesn't see a reason, is not legally required, or doesn't have the necessary resources to maintain logs longer than 30 days. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with "looking out for its students".
I do love the irony of the RIAA being charged to carry out their wishes in essentially a similar fashion as to what they are attempting to implement in the first place. | |
|
 whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
 ·T-Mobile US
| Looks Like Someone is Fighting It. The University of Maine sent this around today.
Fellow Students,
Today, President Priyanth Chandrasekar and I had the student body lawyer, Brett Baber, begin work on an informational pamphlet that will do two things: 1. Explain why and where the issue of downloading music is illegal and 2. What you can do if you are brought into a legal situation with the RIAA.
I have been in contact with the offices of Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe in regards to this--particularly the part involving the fines doled out from a lawsuit, and how tremendously large they are. I will continue communication with them until something can be done to address the unreasonable fines.
That said, downloading copyrighted music is illegal at the federal level and at the University of Maine. Many students have been brought to court and have lost over downloading music--even a 12 year old girl was brought to court by the RIAA. They are very serious and very vigilant. Remember: if you choose to download music, you can be prosecuted and have legal action taken against you. Fines, reported by the Maine Campus, have been between $4,500 and $150,000. These programs include DC++, Limewire, Bittorrent and others. As it is a violation of law, there is little that can be done if you are caught.
That said, I have been given confirmation from University officials that the official stance of the University of Maine is that they will NOT divulge student information to the RIAA. What this means is that the names of the violators will not be turned over voluntarily. However, the RIAA in the process of a lawsuit, may file for a subpoena. If granted by a court, then the University of Maine will be obliged to give over the names of those and any other students, and will have little options.
President Chandrasekar and I will be working on this issue daily now until the issue can be resolved. We will also give as many updates as quickly as possible as the situation progresses. Again, please do not download copyrighted music. If you choose to, there is little that we or the University can do if legal action is taken. Please be mindful of your posts to public forums on FirstClass as they are public, and they can be held against you.
Sincerely,
Bill Pomerleau
| |
|
|  JammerMan79Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC
kudos:10 | Re: Looks Like Someone is Fighting It. said by whfsdude: Many students have been brought to court and have lost over downloading music--even a 12 year old girl was brought to court by the RIAA. They are very serious and very vigilant. huh?
--
I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications. | |
|
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | A taste of their own medicine
The University also wants the RIAA to pay $11 for each letter it processes, stating it takes up valuable staff time.
Finally, the RIAA is getting a taste of their own medicine!
--
A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla. -- Mitch Ratcliffe | |
|
| kpatzMY HEAD A SPLODEPremium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH | Re: A taste of their own medicine That's hardly a taste. The university should charge something more like $300 per letter. After all, for what the school is being told to do, they should get 10% of the extortion money. | |
|
| | PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Re: A taste of their own medicine GOOD POINT! | |
|
 Rattler
join:2001-04-13
Havertown, PA | Missing the point What pnh102 is missing is that an appeals court HAS determined that what the RIAA is doing IS outside the law where ISPs are concerned and may well be extended to colleges and universities since they can be considered the ISPs of their students. They cannot subpoena the information unless they file a lawsuit and their claim is granted. Doing so is not following due process. The universities' response of: "So sue me if you want the names." is a proper one.
They can certainly threaten the universities with lawsuits if they don't cooperate with their requests for information but still can't issue the subpoenas without filing and winning and that's what the universities are telling the RIAA. I would suspect that continued threats, without filing suit after being told "NO", could be considered harassment and open the RIAA to to being sued for same.
--
Never raise your hands to your kids. It leaves your groin unprotected. -- Red Buttons | |
|
| | | Re: Missing the point It is outside the law. You have a right to fight a subpoena. How:
(1) Make them Prove the IP address belonged to that person at the time the RIAA claims they were stealing. If the ISP can't say so, motion to dismiss.
(2) Venue - is the lawyer suing in the right venue? You can't sue someone in L.A. when they live in Miami. The suit has to be where the person lives.
(3) Is the lawyer allowed to practice law in that state? If no, motion to dismiss and demand sanctions against the lawyer. In most states if not all, a Pro Hac has to be filed with the court and the State Bar has to be notified otherwise it is unlicensed practice of law.
I'd be willing to bet this is going to attract a lot of attention from State Bars eventually. Not to mention lawsuits from people for legal fees and emotional distress and harassment. You can also sue the lawyer and the law firm for unlicensed law practice.
(4) Serving a lawsuit usually requires a server. The mail doesn't cut it. A subpoena requires a server. Someone should send this to the Postal Inspector. If the Post Office, which is law enforcement determines it isn't legal, the RIAA could face the Feds on postal charges. After several, it becomes racketeering.
I wonder which episode of the Sopranos the RIAA watched to come up with this scheme? Sure, the kids might be guilty, but proving it and alleging it are two different things. | |
|
|
|
·
