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."
Good to see critical thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Jargon Jingle. (Score:1, Insightful)
Quick show of hands. How many know what the above is without Googling?
Re:Good to see critical thinking (Score:2, Insightful)
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!
Re:Jargon Jingle. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Courts should apply the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unlike U WA (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was a parent of a UW student I'd be mad.
Re:Since when does that matter to thugs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unlike U WA (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like they got off easy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Courts should apply the law (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Gotta love Slashdot. (Score:3, Insightful)
For once an honest judge applied a good law properly - so today we're for the law, that's the righteous way.
Re:Courts should apply the law (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Courts should apply the law (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Nullification -- good point (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a good point and I hope you get modded up. There's more than one way to read GP's experience: racism is one explanation, but subverting the ``war on drugs'' and ``three-strikes-you're-out'' rule is another. Lots of people think those two policies are unjust, perhaps unconstitutional. Why should a juror refrain from deconstructing the system a bit if the system is broken? This is one way that the judiciary gets to check-and-balance the other branches of government. To play by the book or not is a choice that is in the juror's hand; the juror has power. It's up to the juror to wield that power justly. I think that it's okay to wield that power, and that nullification is not a dirty word: just like presidents and governors have the power to pardon anyone, a jury has a comparable power to convict or acquit for one case. Of course the system frowns on nullification, and says it is wrong: but their voice is not the only one to listen to.
Likewise the GP's philosophy of carefully interpreting and applying the law, and playing within the system, is also defensible. That way enhances stability, protects the status quo, helps make the legal process predictable -- those all can be very, very good things. A totally unpredictable, unstable legal system does lots of harm. Playing by the book should be the norm. But when laws are unjust and the police are shady, it is naive to close your eyes and convict or acquit, saying, ``I was just playing by the rules.'' Whatever you choose to do, your choice is a political choice. Pretending that it isn't strengthens the status quo, which isn't automatically a good thing.
Melville churned through all this in Billy Budd, the popular novella.
Re:Great and all, but let's not delude ourselves (Score:2, Insightful)
HOWEVER
You do not fight crime by committing a crime yourself. You do not shoot a jaywalker that walked in front of your car forcing you to slow down (hell, you should not even run them over). However, the RIAA feels that since the defendants in their opinion were committing a crime, they do not have to follow the process designed to make sure that the defendant is truly guilty.
They need to follow the processes of the court system and stop with the extortion letters (which are not settlements because you are not settling with the individual record companies) and stop with the selective enforcement. They also need to have all parties involved in the court cases rather than surprise people with a lawsuit that could have been avoided. They also need to follow legal precedent and make sure that their legal theories stand the test of time (secondary liability comes to mind). Finally, if the defendant decides to fight the charges, the RIAA/record companies should see the process the whole way through, or declare that the defendant is not guilty if discovery shows that to be true (rather than try to dismiss the case as if it never happened).
Simply put, one side committing a crime does not allow the other side free reign on that person.