Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Judge Says No to RIAA Subpoena Request

Posted by CowboyNeal on Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:14 AM
from the trials-and-tribulations dept.
Government The Courts Media Music News
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "For at least the second time, a federal judge has dealt the RIAA's campaign against college students a blow by refusing an ex parte motion by the RIAA for a subpoena against college students. In Newport News, Virginia, Judge Walter D. Kelley, Jr., denied the RIAA's motion for information about students at the College of William and Mary. The Court denied the motion outright, saying it was unauthorized by law. (pdf) Last month it was reported that a New Mexico judge had denied a similar motion directed against University of New Mexico students on the ground that it should not have been made ex parte."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Judge Deals Blow to RIAA 229 comments
jcgam69 writes "A federal judge in New Mexico has put the brakes on the RIAA's lawsuit train, at least in the US District Court for New Mexico. The case in question is part of the RIAA's campaign against file-sharing on college campuses and names "Does 1-16," who allegedly engaged in copyright infringement using the University of New Mexico's network. In a ruling issued last month but disclosed today by file-sharing attorney Ray Beckerman, Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denied the RIAA's motion to engage in discovery. This means that the RIAA will not be able to easily get subpoenas to obtain identifying information from the University."
[+] RIAA Campaign Against Students Hits Stormier Seas 296 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "It's been astutely observed that the RIAA's "ex parte" campaign against "John Doe" college students seems to have run into much stormier waters than its campaign against regular folks. Discovery motions were thrown out by the judges in cases involving the University of New Mexico and the College of William and Mary, and motions to quash have been made by students at Boston University, Oklahoma State University, and the University of South Florida. The RIAA might find it particularly troubling that the students are coming in armed with substantial expert witness declarations attacking the entire underpinning of the RIAA's case, that the students are finding each other and banding together, and that the Chairman of Boston University's Computer Science Department went to bat — as an expert witness — for the BU students."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Judge Says No to RIAA Subpoena Request 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Good to see critical thinking (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Saturday July 14 2007, @10:16AM (#19859507) Homepage Journal
    It is most gratifying to see a Judge deny an ex parte application like that. I.e., only the RIAA was in court. No one else -- not the students, not even the university -- knew about it or had a chance to say anything.

    This is an example of a good judge doing his homework and actually reading the statutes, and not being impressed by pounds of paper and doubletalk.

    I am very happy to see judges like Judge Kelley and Judge Garcia taking a close look, and saying to the RIAA thugs : "Wait a minute, this is still a court of law, not a schoolyard where bullies can just do whatever they want to defenseless people. We have a rule of law, here, buddy."

    • Re:Good to see critical thinking (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Saturday July 14 2007, @10:27AM (#19859585)
      This is definitely one where people should read TFA. The judge tears their motion apart, and stops just short of saying, "I award you no points, and may god have mercy upon your soul."

      • Re:Good to see critical thinking (Score:5, Interesting)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Saturday July 14 2007, @10:33AM (#19859643) Homepage Journal

        This is definitely one where people should read TFA. The judge tears their motion apart, and stops just short of saying, "I award you no points, and may god have mercy upon your soul."
        You're right.

        He's saying, in so many words, "the whole statutory basis for your motion is nonexistent.... why didn't you read the statute before citing it?" and "why didn't you mention the real statute for this kind of thing, which DOESN'T allow this kind of motion against a COLLEGE?"
        • I am sure they were treating college as an ISP in the motion. Let's not confuse form over function. Just because a college provides functions other than an ISP does not mean that it doesn't provide the function of an ISP. That is the function here is and ISP and the form is a college. So the only relevant question becomes is this type of motion allowed against an ISP.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by karmatic (776420)

            I am sure they were treating college as an ISP in the motion. Let's not confuse form over function.

            Well, you're either a moron or a person with reading comprehension problems.

            Actually, if you read the judgement, they weren't treating them like an ISP. The statute they were attempting to claim authorized their motion was a statute authorizing said motions by the government against a cable company.

            The judge basically tells them "There's a DMCA for this sort of thing, and it doesn't authorize this behavior ei

        • Sounds like they got off easy... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by VidEdit (703021) on Saturday July 14 2007, @02:23PM (#19861043)
          The judge's ruling seemed to suggest that the RIAA's blatantly misleading filing borders on perpetrating a fraud on the court. It almost seems lucky the weren't cited for contempt.
          • He said you have to issue a take-down notice, not that you can't. His point was that the RIAA never sent any sort of a notice, so they can't subpoena the College, even when stretching the College to fit the definition of an ISP.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by kiracatgirl (791797)
                I'm not a lawyer either, I have read the article, but I honestly don't think anything you've said is wrong. Then again, the hideous legal document references were extremely distracting, so I don't think I fully understood the details like that myself. I just got the general impression that the Judge thought the RIAA's request was, in all possible interpretations, inappropriate.

      • Re:Good to see critical thinking (Score:4, Informative)

        by value_added (719364) on Saturday July 14 2007, @12:30PM (#19860369)
        This is definitely one where people should read TFA. The judge tears their motion apart, and stops just short of saying, "I award you no points, and may god have mercy upon your soul."

        My favourite bit was the following from the last link:

        Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.

        For anyone unfamiliar with Coleridge [wikipedia.org], reading something on the origin of the phrase suspension of disbelief [texaschapbookpress.com] might be informative. At least easier than reading Coleridge's own works.
    • Well. Now it is just a metter to move to a political sphere and change the law.

      No one can stops the RIAA to overtake the world. Not this judge, not the law, not the people. You just borrowed your freedom. Is is jus a matter of time and money!

      Buahh! ha! ha!

    • Personally, I was thinkin, "That's COMEDY" when I read that article. Anything that cuts the knees off of *IAA is a Good Thing INMSFBHO.

  • The thought just occurred to me the RIAA would like the IP address and every school attendee simply to selectively enforce it. The last thing the RIAA wants to do is go after someone from a family of rich lawyers.... they want the ones that can't afford to fight. Or perhaps daddy might pass a law...

    RIAA paracites.

        • Re:Selective RIAA enfarcement (Score:4, Interesting)

          by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Sunday July 15 2007, @06:16PM (#19871371) Homepage Journal

          I guarantee this is about selective enforcement, and it could just as easily be that they want to determine who has the most money available to pay them off, as much as concerns over someone's lawyer daddy. Obviously, a college kid with no money isn't worth the effort (other than the PR), but if you find some likely candidates and discover their assets you'll be better able to allocate legal resources. In any event, this seems to have become a money-making venture in its own right, and they'll probably want to prequalify their targets to maximize the take. Of course, it could be for some other reason entirely, and you'd have to be an RIAA lawyer to know what that would be.
          Based on my dealings with them it's the latter....

          "some other reason entirely, and you'd have to be an RIAA lawyer to know what that would be"
          From what I've seen the most likely reason for the stuff the RIAA lawyers do is that it makes the RIAA lawyers money. If I could point to one golden thread that runs through everything, it is

          Do whatever takes the most time and costs the most money in legal fees.
  • UW had to give in so easily why now...?

    • Re:Unlike U WA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Saturday July 14 2007, @10:35AM (#19859663) Homepage Journal

      UW had to give in so easily why now...?
      Because they were lazy and cowardly. Had they lifted a finger to fight it, they would have knocked the RIAA out of the box.

      If I was a parent of a UW student I'd be mad.
      • I think UW made the wrong decision, but in their defense they're not releasing any student information, just forwarding the settlement letters. If the RIAA did sue and ask for the info, they very well might fight it.

    • Re:Unlike U WA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kazoo the Clown (644526) on Saturday July 14 2007, @10:45AM (#19859733)
      Actually, W & M likely would have caved in as well, but they didn't have to because the judge caught it before it came to that...

      • Actually, W & M likely would have caved in as well, but they didn't have to because the judge caught it before it came to that...
        You may be right, Kazoo. We'll never know.

        But thank goodness for an alert judge, who actually read the law.

        • Re:Unlike U WA (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ari_j (90255) on Saturday July 14 2007, @11:27AM (#19859983)
          W&M has a tendency to cave in, such as to the NCAA regarding the use of Indian logos and the recent temporary removal (until deep-pocket alumni demanded its return) of a cross from the on-campus Wren Chapel (for those unaware, the Christopher Wren Building is the oldest building in continuous academic use in the United States). This motion may have been decided differently had W&M been given the opportunity to be heard. ;)
            • You are almost certainly speaking from an ignorance of the facts and history involved. Read a few books on it and come back.
    • UW didn't "cave," at least not yet. They forwarded RIAA settlement letters to students, but specifically said that they were not forwarding the students' information on to the RIAA.

  • Other RIAA shenanigans (Score:4, Funny)

    by transporter_ii (986545) on Saturday July 14 2007, @11:36AM (#19860039) Homepage
    Stung by criticism that it was utilizing unlicensed private investigators in order to track down alleged online copyright violators, the RIAA has admitted to "improperly obtaining" user data, and in an unusual near-apology, vowed to clean up its act. "It is time to face the music. We must stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life. Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do," said Mitch Bainwol, Chairman and CEO of the RIAA. Bainwole went on to say, "We have important work to do -- real pirated CDs to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face. I now ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past eighteen months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of upcoming American entertainment that will be brought to you by RIAA members.

    On the same day, the RIAA also announced new software it would make available as a free download called riaaBuddy.

    riaaBuddy is an on-screen "intelligent software agent" created by the RIAA, and based upon Microsoft Agent [wikipedia.org] technology. The goal of the program is to help users enrich their online musical experience as they discover digital music together with the included "riaaBuddy," which is an animated, purple Sheryl Crow. Users can interact with Sheryl by asking her questions, get recommendations on new music released by RIAA artist, as well as be politely informed when unapproved websites are loaded.

    Other features include, an integrated download tracker, music-related themes, desktops, screen savers, and cute, animated emoticons, bearing a resemblance to top-selling RIAA artists. Also included is a desktop search utility that indexes a hard drive's contents in order to allow the user to easily perform searches.

    While initial response to the program has been positive, a few early users complain that the program is buggy. The purple Sheryl Crow is said to only be able to sing the song Daisy Bell. "The program keeps changing my home page to a crappy RIAA home page," said one teenager who wished to remain anonymous out of fear of a RIAA-sponsored lawsuit. There have also been complaints of an increase in pop-up advertising.
    • That brings back memories. I remember being in my high school computer lab in a computer science class when someone installed bonzai buddy. The entire class pointed and laughed at him for a solid 15 minutes.
      • "...when someone installed bonzai buddy."

        Having an anthropomorphic miniature Japanese tree on his screen would have been at least bizarre, if not funny.

    • Re:Jargon Jingle. (Score:5, Informative)

      by BKX (5066) on Saturday July 14 2007, @10:23AM (#19859541) Journal
      My hand goes up. Ex parte is a very common legal term meaning to meet with a judge without both parties being present. Normally, no matter what the motion, when you meet with a judge, both sides get to be present. These subpoenas are being issued with only the RIAA being present.

      • Re:Jargon Jingle. (Score:5, Informative)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Saturday July 14 2007, @10:26AM (#19859569) Homepage Journal
        Yep, the RIAA prefers to do everything the sneaky way.

        They find it inconvenient if someone else shows up to tell the judges the truth.

        Of course, as Judge Garcia was kind enough to point out, their "ex parte" tactics are illegal. Just a minor detail.
        • The whole thing is a protection racket (and EVERYBODY needs protection from these guys [if I was Judge Garcia, I would look in my bed for horse's heads.])

        • Re:Jargon Jingle. (Score:4, Informative)

          by UnknowingFool (672806) on Saturday July 14 2007, @10:45AM (#19859727)
          As NewYorkCountryLawyer pointed out, this particular ex parte motion is illegal. There are very rare circumstances where ex parte communications are allowed. However these are generally the exception and not the rule as the Judge in New Mexico pointed out. In this case Judge Garcia pointed out the the DMCA was written for this exact situation and the RIAA should follow procedures outlined in the statute (which incidentally they helped to write and lobby).

            • Re:Jargon Jingle. (Score:4, Informative)

              by djmurdoch (306849) on Saturday July 14 2007, @11:11AM (#19859905)
              They're asking the judge to compel the university to do something, without having the university present to present objections. They know who the university is.

              • They're asking the judge to compel the university to do something, without having the university present to present objections. They know who the university is.

                Correct.

                Plus, it would be an easy matter for the RIAA to furnish the university, and for the university to send to the John Does, copies of (a) the summons and complaint, (b) the motion papers, and (c) the judge's rules -- i.e. all the things the rules say one is supposed to get when one is sued, and motion is made against one's interests.

        • Likely your activities have helped make judges more aware of this, too, so they're more likely to go "Hey, wait a minute, since when is this legal? No way!" instead of just going along with whatever the RIAA wants.

          I did like this judge effectively saying, "Read the law, dumbasses" :)

        • Since the RIAA wants to do everything out of sight of the public we just need to keep exposing them to the light of day. Like vampires they can't function in the open, slimy creatures prefer the dark.

          I am surprised that a New Mexico judge figured it out. I spent 35 of my first 40 years there and the honesty and common sense level of judges and politicians is much lower than normal. The population is so low for that land area I knew half of them in the 80's and 90's and close to 3/4s in the 70's.

      • So the answer was given up before you even asked the question. Nice

        Or more likely, it was given up *while* he was asking the question. This isn't IRC, there's a bit of a delay between looking for other comments and posting your own.

        • He must type slow; there were 2 minutes between the post explaining what 'ex parte' means and his two-line query.

    • Re:Courts should apply the law (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday July 14 2007, @10:31AM (#19859629)
      That's a tough call. Judges don't make laws, lawmakers do that ... and frequently they do it badly. Giving the judiciary some wiggle-room can prevent abuse as much as permit it. Yeah, it's a double-edged sword.
      • Judges also have to decide whether a law is, in itself, legal, whether it plays nicely with previous laws and the constitutions (state and national). In addition, judges have to decide what a law actually says, not what the lawmakers meant. While we don't have a system like the UK's where the courts have almost legislative power, the constitution does give judges the responsibility to judge and interpret the laws. In other words, while I agree with what Screwmaster said, I do believe the constitution itself
    • Juries apply the law, based on evidence presented by the two parties and instructions from the presiding judge. Judges exist to decide how the law applies to the matter at hand, and provide clarification for the jury composed of laypersons. This in and of itself requires interpretation, as very frequently law is not black and white, or two laws may conflict, or there is a question of whose rights supersede the rights of others.

      Law isn't math or physics. There very frequently is no "right" or "wrong", jus
      • There is a hideous irony between your post and your sig...

        As someone once put it, "A jury consists of 12 people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty". :(

        • Re:Courts should apply the law (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fredklein (532096) on Saturday July 14 2007, @02:29PM (#19861067)
          The first time I was summoned to jury duty, I though 'hey, way to get paid for doing nothing!', and I was right. Three days sitting, reading a book, waiting to be called. Cool.

          Second time, I got put on a case. To say I 'quickly became dis-enamored with the legal system' would be like saying 'upon exposure to heat, the gasoline rapidly oxidized'. True, but a major understatement.

          It was a civil case, 6 jurors. A woman driving a mini-van backed into a pedestrian, knocking him down, breaking his collarbone. I could go on for hours describing the details, but the relevant facts are:

          1) the man admited to leaving the crosswalk and walking diagonally down the road
          2) the man's statements contradicted themselves, to the point he comitted perjury
          3) In my opinion, the woman acted reasonably. She checked her side mirror, rear miror, and them turned her upper body and head so she could look out the rear window of the mini-van as she reversed. The fact that the man was in the middle of the block, in the middle of the street, in her blind spot, was not her fault.
          4) the man was asking for over a half-million dollars, just for 'pain and suffering'.

          Long story short, it was my opinion that, since the woman acted reasonably, and the man was the one who left the crosswalk (and later lied under oath), she owed him nothing. Unfortunately, the other 5 jurors did not see it that way. This was New York, a city where there are more pedestrians than drivers. I could practically see the $-signs in people eyes. I actually had one juror say 'If you got hit by a car, wouldn't you want to get compensated?' I replied 'I wouldn't expect money if I was the one at fault."

          Since a civil case does not need a unanimous verdict, in the end we found for the plaintiff. Now the matter of how much came into play. The "ammount to adaquately compensate him for his losses" was determined (by the other 5) to be around $130,000. They knocked off 35% because they magnanamously agreed it was 'partly his fault' that he jay-walked behind a moving vehicle. That brought the award to abotu $100,000. Then one particularly bright juror piped up with thas shocked: "...but his lawyer will take 1/3, wo we have to give him more", like it's our job to pay the mans lawyer!! We didn't know the man's legal fees. Heck, the laywer could have been a friend doing it for free, for all we knew.

          And then something happened that... put it all in perspective. Soemthing that made me realize why the jury system in this country, while it was no doubt a good idea when it was created, is no longer wise.

          They decided to give him $133,000.

          Now, dear reader, please take a moment to do the math. The jurors wanted to award the men 'X', such that when 1/3X was removed, the man ended up with $100,000.
          100,000 = X - 1/3X
          100,000 = 2/3X
          3/2 * 100,000 = X
          150,000 = x

          I was doing this in 5th grade, but these MORONS couldn't even get this SIMPLE math right. I tried to correct tham. Twice. Then I shut up, since their error lowered the award I thought should be $0 anyway.

          .

          Don't even get me started on my 3rd jury duty. Undercover Cop had audio and video of the defendant selling him drugs on 6 out of 7 occasions (the first time they weren't recording as the UC was just supposed to meet the guy, but the guy was so eager to sell, he sold to the UC that time too.) They have video of him walking away counting the money, smiling. The defense ADMITTED the defendant handed over drugs for money on each occasion. Their only defense? 'AGENCY'- the man wasn't 'selling' drugs to the UC, he was 'purchasing drugs FOR the UC', as his 'agent'. Of course, the defendant seem to already have the drugs the UC wanted on hand, and the video of him counting the money, smiling, implies he was making a profit (making a profit from either side means he no longer met the legal definition of an 'agent'). Oh- and he'd been to jail 2 time before for... you guessed it, dealing drugs.
          There was one minor marijuana charge w

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Kattspya (994189)
            The last example you put forth is an example of the jury system working not the opposite. Drug laws suck for all intents and purposes. They do nothing good and have major negative effects. Being able to fuck over a law that is unjust as a juror can be a good thing. And in this case it was.
            • The last example you put forth is an example of the jury system working not the opposite. Drug laws suck for all intents and purposes.

              Funny. That wasn't a reason the two hold-outs gave. If they DID give that reason, I could understand it, and make a counter-argument.

              Actually, the whole reason the UnderCover cop ('UC') was sent to that neighborhood to find and bust drug dealers was CITIZEN COMPLAINTS. You see, drug dealers (and drug users) tend to break other laws as well. They hang out on the street corn

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by iminplaya (723125)
            ...the other two juros insisted on saying 'Not Guilty' for ALL counts. They outright REFUSED to discuss why they 'beleived' he was not guilty.

            Could have been a case of nullification. I will do the same thing in drug and adult prostitution cases, and over copyright violations. I will never send somebody to jail over what I consider bad and unjust law. Never.

      • That the truth is not perceptible or discernible does not by itself imply that the truth does not exist. I think it a large leap from 'laws require interpretations because there are apparent ambiguities in how to apply them' to 'there is no one correct way to interpret a law'. That the calculus of competing interests, rights, and persons is too subtle for human beings to divine a definitive understanding of how it ought to be applied is simply a measure of human limitations, and not necessarily evidence of

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by trewornan (608722)
      Some laws are good and some laws are bad. Sometimes the law is applied properly and sometimes it's not. Some judges are honest and some are corrupt.

      For once an honest judge applied a good law properly - so today we're for the law, that's the righteous way.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.