Judge Says No to RIAA Subpoena Request 154
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."
Re:Jargon Jingle. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jargon Jingle. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Jargon Jingle. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Jargon Jingle. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good to see critical thinking (Score:4, Informative)
My favourite bit was the following from the last link:
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.
Re:Jargon Jingle. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Good to see critical thinking (Score:3, Informative)