Lemur
11-30-2007, 17:56
Couldn't happen to a nicer organization. Apparently a few years of driftnet lawsuits can irritate just about everybody.
First off, the Oregon Attorney General (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071129-oregon-attorney-general-criticizes-riaas-conduct-in-p2p-cases.html) is displeased:
One of the hotly contested campus file-sharing cases involves 17 University of Oregon students, which has seen the Attorney General of Oregon stepping in on the university's behalf to contest the RIAA's "unduly burdensome" subpoenas. As expected, the RIAA opposed the AG's attempt to quash the subpoenas, and the state has now submitted a reply in support of its motion to quash in which it calls into question the RIAA's litigation tactics and seeks to conduct discovery of its own into the RIAA's investigative tactics.
The AG's motion makes a number of points about the RIAA's tactics and suggests that some of them may be illegal under Oregon law. SafeNet, which hunts for copyright infringers on P2P networks is not licensed to conduct investigations in the state of Oregon, as the AG believes is necessary under state law.
Oregon's AG is also suspicious about what kind of information SafeNet and the RIAA may have already gathered on the Does in question. According to the motion, the RIAA refused to answer interrogatories on whether its investigators had engaged in data mining to obtain "personal and confidential information" on the users, including user names, passwords, search histories, credit card numbers, and e-mail addresses. The AG wants to be able to engage in discovery to determine "precisely how invasive Plaintiffs' investigation was."
The AG also calls the RIAA's evidence into question, noting that the RIAA's motion seeking ex parte discovery contains "broad representations to create the impression they had sufficient information to warrant extraordinary relief." Those representations include a declaration by the RIAA's usual expert witness, Carlos Linares, who the AG points out played no role in the current case and has no firsthand information about any copyright infringement that may have occurred. "Plaintiffs have shown only a potential for illegal file sharing; they have not shown that any infringing activity took place," argues the AG.
And in even more exciting news, looks as though the private equity team that took over EMI (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/28/emi_trade_bodies_hands/) would very much like to halve the funding they're puring down the RIAA's black hole of endless lawsuits:
Guy Hands has been firing off letters to music industry trade organisations in which he has threatened to cut EMI's annual funding commitment by half.
According to various reports the Terra Firma boss, who acquired the troubled record company for close to $5bn in May, sent out letters to the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) last month.
Both the Financial Times and Reuters report that people familiar with the matter said EMI currently pays out some $25m a year to music industry trade bodies.
The sources claim that Hands has been suggesting such costs were a waste of money and that instead the IFPI should consider merging with the British Phonographic Industry.
However, while EMI and other majors could save a sackload of cash by cutting their subs, making such cuts would arguably put a dent in the trade bodies' efforts to crackdown on music piracy.
One of the key tenets of such organisations is to lobby regulators and reel in the pirates that cost the industry billions of dollars in lost sales every year.
Before private equity outfit Terra Firma bought the record company, EMI had been in financial freefall - it reported a £265m loss in May this year, citing disappointing album sales. Hands has been on a crusade ever since to strip out what he sees as unnecessary costs at the firm.
First off, the Oregon Attorney General (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071129-oregon-attorney-general-criticizes-riaas-conduct-in-p2p-cases.html) is displeased:
One of the hotly contested campus file-sharing cases involves 17 University of Oregon students, which has seen the Attorney General of Oregon stepping in on the university's behalf to contest the RIAA's "unduly burdensome" subpoenas. As expected, the RIAA opposed the AG's attempt to quash the subpoenas, and the state has now submitted a reply in support of its motion to quash in which it calls into question the RIAA's litigation tactics and seeks to conduct discovery of its own into the RIAA's investigative tactics.
The AG's motion makes a number of points about the RIAA's tactics and suggests that some of them may be illegal under Oregon law. SafeNet, which hunts for copyright infringers on P2P networks is not licensed to conduct investigations in the state of Oregon, as the AG believes is necessary under state law.
Oregon's AG is also suspicious about what kind of information SafeNet and the RIAA may have already gathered on the Does in question. According to the motion, the RIAA refused to answer interrogatories on whether its investigators had engaged in data mining to obtain "personal and confidential information" on the users, including user names, passwords, search histories, credit card numbers, and e-mail addresses. The AG wants to be able to engage in discovery to determine "precisely how invasive Plaintiffs' investigation was."
The AG also calls the RIAA's evidence into question, noting that the RIAA's motion seeking ex parte discovery contains "broad representations to create the impression they had sufficient information to warrant extraordinary relief." Those representations include a declaration by the RIAA's usual expert witness, Carlos Linares, who the AG points out played no role in the current case and has no firsthand information about any copyright infringement that may have occurred. "Plaintiffs have shown only a potential for illegal file sharing; they have not shown that any infringing activity took place," argues the AG.
And in even more exciting news, looks as though the private equity team that took over EMI (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/28/emi_trade_bodies_hands/) would very much like to halve the funding they're puring down the RIAA's black hole of endless lawsuits:
Guy Hands has been firing off letters to music industry trade organisations in which he has threatened to cut EMI's annual funding commitment by half.
According to various reports the Terra Firma boss, who acquired the troubled record company for close to $5bn in May, sent out letters to the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) last month.
Both the Financial Times and Reuters report that people familiar with the matter said EMI currently pays out some $25m a year to music industry trade bodies.
The sources claim that Hands has been suggesting such costs were a waste of money and that instead the IFPI should consider merging with the British Phonographic Industry.
However, while EMI and other majors could save a sackload of cash by cutting their subs, making such cuts would arguably put a dent in the trade bodies' efforts to crackdown on music piracy.
One of the key tenets of such organisations is to lobby regulators and reel in the pirates that cost the industry billions of dollars in lost sales every year.
Before private equity outfit Terra Firma bought the record company, EMI had been in financial freefall - it reported a £265m loss in May this year, citing disappointing album sales. Hands has been on a crusade ever since to strip out what he sees as unnecessary costs at the firm.