Slashdot Log In
RIAA's Boston University Subpoena Quashed
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Apr 05, 2008 04:27 PM
from the judges-should-be-issues-banhammers dept.
from the judges-should-be-issues-banhammers dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "As first reported by p2pnet, the motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena seeking identities of Boston University students has been granted, at least for the moment. In a 52-page opinion (pdf) the Judge concluded that she could not decide whether or not to quash until she had seen the college's 'Terms of Service Agreement' for internet service. It was only then she could decide what 'expectation of privacy' the students had. She quashed the subpoena calling for the student identities, and told them they could go ahead with a subpoena just for the terms of service agreement. Interestingly the decision was issued on the very same day as the judge in Elektra v. Barker came to some of the same conclusions."
Related Stories
[+]
Boston University Student Challenges RIAA 381 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A Boston University student identified only as one of the 21 'John Does' in Arista v. Does 1-21 has challenged the RIAA's alleged right to get his or her identity from the school, bringing a motion to vacate the ex parte discovery order obtained by the RIAA, and to quash the subpoena served on the university. John Doe's court papers (PDF) argue, among other things, that the RIAA's papers are 'based on a flawed theory that having copyrighted music files on an individual's computer or on an assigned folder on Boston University's server is a "distribution" of such copyrighted music files, where such folder is merely accessible by others.'"
[+]
Your Rights Online: Judge Rejects RIAA 'Making Available' Theory 353 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A federal judge in Connecticut has rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory, which is the basis of all of the RIAA's peer to peer file sharing cases. In Atlantic v. Brennan, in a 9-page opinion [PDF], Judge Janet Bond Arterton held that the RIAA needs to prove 'actual distribution of copies', and cannot rely — as it was permitted to do in Capitol v. Thomas — upon the mere fact that there are song files on the defendant's computer and that they were 'available'. This is the same issue that has been the subject of extensive briefing in two contested cases in New York, Elektra v. Barker and Warner v. Cassin. Judge Arterton also held that the defendant had other possible defenses, such as the unconstitutionality of the RIAA's damages theory and possible copyright misuse flowing from the record companies' anticompetitive behavior."
[+]
RIAA "Making Available" Theory Rejected 168 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a 25-page decision (PDF) which has been awaited for two years in Elektra v. Barker, Judge Kenneth M. Karas has rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory and its 'authorization' theory, but sustained the sufficiency of the complaint's allegations of 'distribution' and 'downloading,' and also gave the RIAA 30 days to cure the defects in its complaint by filing a new complaint. The judge left it open for the RIAA to allege that defendant made an 'offer to distribute,' and that the offer was for "'the purpose of further distribution,' which, the judge held, would be actionable."
[+]
Mediasentry Violates Cease & Desist Order 216 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "On January 2, 2008, the Massachusetts State Police ordered MediaSentry, the RIAA's investigator, to cease and desist from conducting investigations in Massachusetts without a license. Based on what appears to be irrefutable proof that MediaSentry has been violating that order, the Boston University students who tentatively won, in London-Sire v. Doe 1, an order tentatively quashing the subpoena for their identities, have brought a new motion to vacate the RIAA's court papers altogether, on the ground that the RIAA's 'evidence' was procured by criminal behavior."
[+]
Your Rights Online: RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship 181 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's top litigation lawyer, who has been personally leading the RIAA's litigation campaign for the past several years, Richard Gabriel, will be leaving his law practice after getting a job as a state court judge for a 2-year term in Colorado. What this will mean to the RIAA's litigation machine is anyone's guess. Mr. Gabriel has personally argued all of the RIAA's main cases, including Elektra v. Barker, Atlantic v. Howell, Atlantic v. Brennan, Capitol v. Foster, Atlantic v. Andersen, UMG v. Lindor, and London-Sire v. Doe 1, and personally tried the Capitol v. Thomas case, the only RIAA case that has ever gone to trial. He was working directly under the supervision of the RIAA's mysterious 'representative' Matthew Oppenheim."
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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
quash this (Score:2, Funny)
That sounds painful... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh? What's that? SubPEONA?
Nevermind.
Getting Closer (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Getting Closer (Score:5, Interesting)
A trial-level court can only make decisions that are binding in the case that it is hearing. Right now the case is in the federal court for the District of Massachusetts. The RIAA could just as easily file a suit against different college students in a different federal court and get a different outcome.
The next stop for this case would be an apellate court. The federal Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is the appellate court that would hear the appeal. If the appellate court rules in favor of the students, then all of the trial courts in a limited geographic area (Maine, Mass, New Hampshire, Rhode Island) are bound. If the RIAA filed outside that area then a different court could come up with a different outcome.
The next stop from the First Circuit would be the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the laws is binding nationwide. But, the Supreme Court hears less than 1% of the cases that people appeal. The odds of this case setting a national precedent are VERY low.
Of course, other judges can be pursuaded by the reasoning in this case, but there's nothing binding about it.
Parent
Re:Getting Closer (Score:4, Interesting)
A trial-level court can only make decisions that are binding in the case that it is hearing. Right now the case is in the federal court for the District of Massachusetts. The RIAA could just as easily file a suit against different college students in a different federal court and get a different outcome.
But precedent is really important where you want to bind other future litigants. When the litigant is the same you can get an order in one court that will bind them no matter where they operate. In this case the same entities are commencing the various lawsuits in the different jurisdictions. The court could enter, for example, an anti-suit injunction against the RIAA to prevent further similar lawsuits if they wanted, and if the RIAA filed the same suit in a different federal court they'd get slapped with contempt in the court issuing the anti-suit injunction.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it could, but that needlessly minimizes the point here. When you go to argue a motion to judge, you present not only binding precedents from above but lateral precedents as well. If the reasoning th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While technically true, binding precedents in other Circuit Courts can be persuasive authority. If all the Circuit courts rule the same way, t
Won't hold forever (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd note that I don't expect these roadblocks to the RIAA getting student's identities to hold forever. It simply isn't permissible in the US legal system to prevent a plaintiff with a legitimate claim from discovering the identity of the person they have that claim against. The best the students can hope for in the long run is to require the RIAA to prove that the IP address and client they have a record of did in fact commit copyright infringement. That's probably a significant hurdle, but if the RIAA clears it then the students will not be able to block discovery of their identities.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Except that more and more of the claims are being shown to not be legit.
Besides, there are circumstances where such anonymity is a critical point to service or business. Journalist sources, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with this. In fact, I'd love to see the RIAA try to do this, merely for the effect that having actual evidence of copyright infringement would have on these cases.
That said, I will always have sources for free music that the RIAA will never be able to do anything about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Won't hold forever (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Won't hold forever (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just it! Prove to me you HAVE a legitimate claim, THEN you can have the name. Else, bringing up any bogus lawsuit would be easy means of finding anyone's identity.
Parent
Re:Won't hold forever (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd note that I don't expect these roadblocks to the RIAA getting student's identities to hold forever. It simply isn't permissible in the US legal system to prevent a plaintiff with a legitimate claim from discovering the identity of the person they have that claim against. The best the students can hope for in the long run is to require the RIAA to prove that the IP address and client they have a record of did in fact commit copyright infringement. That's probably a significant hurdle, but if the RIAA clears it then the students will not be able to block discovery of their identities.
So perhaps the courts should be requiring them to demonstrate the legitimateness of the claim first. Especially the highly-questionable joinder of unrelated cases solely for purposes of discovery, followed by dropping of the suit and re-filing individual suits.
Parent
Re:Won't hold forever (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Won't hold forever (Score:4, Interesting)
2. Judge Gertner's automatic consolidation of each new RIAA case is, in my personal opinion, also contrary to law under these circumstances, and is certainly grossly unfair to the defendants.
Parent
Re: (Score:1)
The above post may or may not be worthy of moding up, but moding it down as redundant was stupid.
He's a lawyer, validating (what appears to be) a non-lawyer's posting on a legal issue... seems to me that clarifies the legitimacy of the OP, unless of course, that has no value on /.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Won't hold forever (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm surprised the Judge is debating whether the school's TOS for internet use trumps FERPA.
Parent
Re:Won't hold forever-YOUR ARUGMENT DOESN'T HOLD W (Score:2)
The problem with your argument is that the plaintiffs don't have legitimate claims. They can't prove actual uploading, actual downloading, and making available isn't in the Copyright Act. It's not the filesharer's fault that the law hasn't caught up to their activities, and the RIAA shouldn't be allowed to try and create new law where
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what I found from MITnet (Score:1)
I'm not an MIT student so perhaps one of them will come up a more inclusive document that states the TOS in using their network.
http://web.mit.edu/olh/Rules/#rule_4 [mit.edu]
All in all, what I saw when I read through that was that it DID not say whether or not MIT would surrender any information in case of a lawsuit against the network.
Maybe (Score:3, Funny)
Anyways, the documents I MEANT to find are no where to be found in a quick search. Perhaps someone there can be of use. Anywho, flame me away for my stupidity. Back to drinking!
When all the dust settles (Score:2)
Here's the thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's the thing (Score:5, Informative)
I actually used that to get my PSP online when it first came out, Wipeout was the only game that could get online, but the simple web browser (something like Links with graphics in terms of capability) couldn't figure out the login page that CU put up.
So, I had a friend change the MAC address on his laptop to that of my PSP, I signed it up as being "mine", and then my PSP worked on the wifi.
So, the the device I used to register the MAC address had absolutely nothing to do with the device that I was using most of the time that actually had that MAC address built in.
A MAC address is about as identifying as a nametag.
Parent
terms of use policy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So if the TOU says, we'll give first names, or birthdays, or just a big, "it was used on tuesday from 3-5pm by SOMEONE", then that's all the RIAA can ask for. They can't ask to know anything that a student can expect to have protected via the TOU.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Boston University reserves the right, without notice, to limit or restrict any individual's use, and to inspect, copy, remove or otherwise alter any data, file, or system resource which may undermine the authorized use of any computing facility or which is used in violation of University rules or policies. Boston University also reserves the right periodically to examine any system and any other r
Re: (Score:1)