In a new "John Doe" case against 22 students at Rhode Island College in Providence, Rhode Island, Arista v. Does 1-22, 1:08-cv-00066-S-DLM (D. Rhode Island), District Judge William E. Smith, instead of signing the RIAA's proposed order, scheduled a conference for Monday, March 10th, at 10:30 A.M., and provided for notice to be given to the college.
Ex Parte Motion for Discovery of Student Identities*
Declaration of Carlos Linares in support of Ex Parte Motion for Discovery of Student Identities*
Proposed Order*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property
15 comments:
The links appear to be broken.
--Ben.
Two bad links and one corrupt file. Three strikes, you're out!
Checking docs after posting them would identify the need to fix the problems.
Anon Nag
Hi Ray,
Could you check your links? They don't seem to be working from here for this specific entry.
Brgds,
Scott
Sorry Ray, but I think you need to check you links on this post.
Dave
Ray, can you check your links please?
Anyway even without reading It I allow me a comment:
Nice!
Could it be that more and more judges finaly at the end of first quarter '08/beginning second quarter08 after about 4 years begin to really get an idea how RIAA has played with them for so long that the judges now start to to do what they are hired for: rule about the law in a lawfull nongaming manner?!
It's so good to see that there are still some among them that take their "job" seriously.
Lets hope more and more reclaim their jobposition when dealing with "well-known and respected record companies" as plaintiffs instead of rubberstamping RIAA's demands.
Thanks folks, much appreciated!!!!
2nd & 3rd links have been repaired.
I'm still working on the 1st.
OK thanks everybody.... all links are operable now.
alter_fritz, it does seem that more and more judges are starting to get wise to the way they have been used by the RIAA. Also, I get the impression that Rhode Island is a collegial place, and the judges don't take kindly to one lawyer trying to sneak in and get something behind another lawyer's back.
By the way, the RIAA's local lawyer is a former attorney general of Rhode Island. Hard to believe that the former attorney general is now assisting in the RIAA's criminal enterprise; I wonder if he's aware that (a) his investigators are unlicensed, (b) the joinder he signed off on was in contempt of a court order entered by 2 federal judges in 2004, or (c) a Maine Magistrate Judge has recommended Rule 11 sanctions for similar improper joinder based on false statements of fact.
Did you notice that while Media Sentry has removed mention of investigation from their site, the filing here cites Media Sentry as "a third-party investigator" (which should undermine their logic for not requiring an investigators license).
Great catch, Anonymous!
Hm, why does Carlos claims in 18. 19. and 20 that it was RIAA that does the work and not MS (their "investigators") like he claimed a few sentences before that in the same perjury thingy?
A bit careless the RIAA-Carlos isn't he?
P.S: while I of course believe you Ray that the judge sheduled otherwise, for reasons of consistency in your posting behaviour ( and I do not mean the repeated errors from time to time ;-) ) you might want to post a copy of his order too if YOU already have read it.
Ray,
In Paragraph 2, it appears to me that Mr. Linares is admitting that he and the RIAA conducts investigations for their clients music companies. Since this in under penalty of perjury, it looks like prosecution of this crime is a same dunk! No private investigators license, for him or RIAA.
In Paragrapy 4, Mr. Linares appears to implicate both the RIAA, himself, and third party Media Sentry of committing crimes. Private investigations without a license to do so.
Then in Paragraph 10 Mr. Linares states and I quote: "Plantiffs .... do not know the true names or mailing address of those individuals who are committing the infringement." My question to Mr. Linares is how can this statement be true and the statement in Paragraph 12 which I qoute "Users of P2P networks can be identified by their IP addresses...". If this is really true, then they have already identified the individual and thus there is no need for any discovery. Both statements can not be true. Therefore, hasn't Mr. Linares committed perjury again. Seems to be a habit with him.
Paragraph 12 besides being junk science, it does not appear that Mr. Linares is qualified from either knowledge, training or personal experience to state what he states in this paragraph. If he has no personal knowledge, has he not again committed perjury?
In Paragraph 15, it appears that Mr. Linares has committed perjury again, when he states and I quote "I provide oversight", the last time I looked that statement does not mean he actually did/read/reviewed anything, and thus lacks personal knowledge.
In Paragraph 18, he states and I quote "The RIAA could not, however, determine the physical location of the users or their identities." Again, my question is which is Mr. Linares, either you can, or you can not!
I could go on, but actually I have one question for you Ray, which I hope you appreciate. I would assume that Mr. Linares has consulted with a attorney before he signed this declaration. My question to you is why would any attorney allow him to sign this declaration?
blhseawa
The fradulant Carlos Linares Declaration rears its ugly head once more. Can't we put a stake through this thing and kill their ability to use it once and for all? Anyone who submits this to any court is lying through their teeth to that court, and should be sanctioned right out of their law license, and all their ill-gotten gains from this litigation!
(See my suggestion in an earlier post for a picture – one worth a thousand briefs – showing why Linares is so demonstrably wrong.)
-DM
I note that the Proposed Order subpoenas the Media Access Control (MAC) address. This is hardly "directory" information for any student. Why would they want it? Clearly in an attempt to identify the computer by its unique MAC address since, despite their contention that they've already identified the computer(s) involved in the infringement, they've done no such thing. It's just RIAA lie after RIAA lie after RIAA lie.
-DM
Paragraph 10 Mr. Linares states: "...those individuals who are committing the infringement."
Isn't that a conclusion of law, not a statement of fact?
Actually, Rhode island PI exemptions are even clearer than Mass:
§ 5-5-20 Exemptions. – (a) Nothing in this chapter includes the activities of any person employed by any federal or state agency or any city or town as an investigator. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a detective's license in order to interview parties and/or witnesses in legal matters.
(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a detective's license of any of the following:
(1) An agent, employee, or assistant to a licensed "detective" whose duties are in connection with the regular and customary business of his or her contracting agency;
(2) A person engaged in earning his or her livelihood by genealogical work and the compilation of family history while so engaged;
(3) An insurance investigator; or
(4) A credit reporting bureau or agency whose business is principally the furnishing of information as to business and financial standing and credit responsibility.
The exemption for lawyers is confined to interviewing witnesses and parties.
Q
Post a Comment