Appeals Court Stays RIAA Subpoena Vs. Students 266
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The procedures used by the RIAA the past 5 years in suing 'John Does' without their knowing about it have never been subjected to scrutiny by an appeals court, since most of the 'John Does' never learn about the 'ex parte' proceeding until it's too late to do anything about it. That is about to change. In Arista Records v. Does 1-16, a case targeting students at the Albany Campus of the State University of New York, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has decided to put things on hold while it takes a careful look at what transpired in the lower court. The way it came to this is that a few 'John Does' filed a broad-based challenge to a number of the RIAA's procedures, citing the defendant's constitutional rights, the insufficiency of the complaint, the lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, improper misjoinder of the defendants, and the RIAA's illegal procurement of its 'evidence' through the use of an unlicensed investigator, MediaSentry. The lower court judges gave short shrift to 'John Doe #3,' but he promptly filed an appeal, and asked for a stay of the subpoena and lower court proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. The RIAA opposed the motion, arguing that John Doe's appeal had no chance of success. The Appeals Court disagreed and granted the motion, freezing the subpoena and putting the entire case on hold until the appeal is finally determined. As one commentator said, 'this news has been a long time coming, but is welcomed.'"
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
Is it possible for the RIAA to drop the case in order to stop these proceedings? I know that's a tactic they've used in the past when things didn't go their way. Hopefully, they won't be able to just say "oops, our bad" and stop any investigation into their tactics.
Yes it is possible for it to try that gambit. But it is also possible for the Court to retain jurisdiction over it.
Re:as one commentor said (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
If the appellate court forces the RIAA to use the ordinary subpoena process instead of 'ex-parte' with joinder then will that not substantially alter the cost equation for the RIAA?
Yes, if they had been following the law, it would have cost them more. In fact, if they had been following the law, they wouldn't have even been able to file the lawsuits. But it is not about costing them money, or preventing them from bringing lawsuits to enforce their copyrights. The important thing is that the law be followed, and not bent to suit the whims of large corporations just because they can afford to hire a large number of unscrupulous lawyers.
Re:NO CHANCE!?!?! (Score:5, Informative)
2. Under American law you are required to give notice, and an opportunity to be heard, PRIOR to the court granting your motion. This has not occurred in the RIAA cases. It has been an ongoing flagrant violation of American law.
Re:Let me be the first to ask... (Score:5, Informative)
"Misjoinder" is a legal term. In this case what it refers to is the fact that the RIAA sued 16 "John Does" in a single case, even though the federal rules clearly required them to bring 16 separate cases, and even though in 2004 they were ordered by two federal judges to cease and desist from that practice.
Interpretation Non-Lawyers (Score:3, Informative)
This is the first time an appeals court has examined whether or not having a court hearing without the presence of the defendant (ex parte preceding) is permissible given such little evidence, no real damages incurred by the plaintiff (insufficiency of complaint), whether or not the given court is even the right place to hear the complaint (lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants), whether or not lumping all of these defendants together as a collective group is legitimate (improper misjoinder of the defendants), and whether or not it's complete BS that the RIAA is using a private group to invade individual's privacy to obtain information (illegal procurement of evidence).
That last description may be a little biased.
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
Will there be a full appeal with oral arguments?
Yes!!!
Re:Plaintiff's footnote (Score:5, Informative)
In the Plaintiff's Motion to Quash, they state in footnote 1, "Defendants rely on the same arguments Mr. Beckerman has raised and lost in other cases." Strangely enough, they fail to cite the actual cases in which these arguments have been "raised and lost." Are there actual legal precedents in which Mr. Beckerman's arguments have been found lacking, or are the RIAA lawyers just blatantly lying?
There are some motions we have made which we have lost in the lower courts, however we prevailed on the portion of our motions which was directed to the "making available" theory, and most other lawyers have prevailed on the misjoinder issue.
In the appeals court, all of that is basically academic. The appeals court is here to give the district courts direction, not the other way around.
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
Do you know if the 2nd Circuit has mp3s available of oral arguments? My quick google search didn't find any. I know other circuits have them available.
Not to my knowledge. You're just going to have come on down to the courthouse to see Mr. Altman in action.
Re:Give those Pirates What they Deserve! (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't stealing, as stealing means something was taken. In the case of downloading, it's copied not removed from the source.
Taking a CD from a shop is stealing and a criminal act. Downloading a CD is infringement of copyright and therefore a civil matter.
All your analogies involve removing a physical item and that constitutes theft.
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
More than one court has already noted this. In 2004 the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin, TX) sua sponte (meaning without being asked to do so by either party) dismissed four separate cases totaling 254 defendants (Fonovisa vs Does 1-41, Atlantic vs Does 1-151, Elektra vs Does 1-11, UMG vs Does 1-51) and told the RIAA to refile against each defendant individually.
It appears that they RIAA has not followed that order in other cases since 2004. How much weight would this order have at the to Appeals court in this case? Some, little, jurisdiction issues? NYCL?
Re:Isn't RIAA's request reasonable? (Score:3, Informative)
I think that you mean "impermissible evidence" not "illegal evidence". And yes, it does apply to civil parties. If Bob breaks into my house and steals the daily diary in which I lay out my plan to defame him, he still can't use it in court. First of all, if he shows up in court with it, he'll be arrested for theft or receiving stolen property. Secondly, allowing him to use it would undermine the very rule of law which the court is attempting to enforce.
In most states only a licensed investigator is permitted to procure evidence to be used in court. Why? Because if you license investigators you can create oversite for them and ensure that they follow a set of pre-defined and pre-approved methodologies. Otherwise, each and every case has to be prefaced with a hearing on the accuracy and legitimacy of the information collected by the investigator.
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
More than one court has already noted this. In 2004 the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin, TX) sua sponte (meaning without being asked to do so by either party) dismissed four separate cases totaling 254 defendants (Fonovisa vs Does 1-41, Atlantic vs Does 1-151, Elektra vs Does 1-11, UMG vs Does 1-51) and told the RIAA to refile against each defendant individually.
Moreover there are practical reasons supporting severing the claims against the defendants. The filing fees for the recent four cases totaled $600, whereas filing fees for 254 separate cases would have been $38,100. . .Because these four suits are in actuality 254 separate lawsuits, the Court sua sponte will dismiss without prejudice all but the first defendant in each case. . .In addition, Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience.
It appears that they RIAA has not followed that order in other cases since 2004. How much weight would this order have at the to Appeals court in this case? Some, little, jurisdiction issues? NYCL?
Speaking from the point of view of an appellate court, it would tip us off that the plaintiffs' lawyers have been cavalier about following the law. And we might direct the lower court to order the RIAA to show cause why it was not in contempt of that order.
Re:NO CHANCE!?!?! (Score:3, Informative)
but they were ALREADY heard in court and judged, that's how they got a judge to make the ISP give out names.
The game is to sue "jon doe" at 192.168.0.1 for $250k infringement in civil court, and because they can't find all the names, it's just between the lawyers and the judge! Then they take the summary judgment (which legally is very, very bad) to debtor's court to get your name and address, then call you up to settle. If you don't settle, then they wave the full judgment in front of you. I
t's legally money you ALREAY OWE that's what makes the court cases so nasty, because they don't have to ever prove how they got the summary judgment (jon doe didn't show up, he can't contest later!), they only have to prove whether or not you're "jon doe" on that day of the week, it's a "new" case for debt against you, as the infringement case is already closed!
Re:Isn't RIAA's request reasonable? (Score:4, Informative)
How about you bring suit based on your friend reporting whatever. Should the judge basically say "your friend is not a license investigator, you thereby have no argument whatsoever"? I realize the weakness of the analogy, but shouldn't the validity of the argument be discussed rather than dismissed without examining?
There is a difference. My friend is not a licensed investigator, but he can have a look around things if I ask him to, as long as he is not investigating for hire. Perfectly legal. If he goes to court, the judge can ask him questions to find out whether he is a reliable witness, and his evidence would be treated accordingly. The unlicensed investigator, on the other hand, has already broken the law just by taking money for investigating when he didn't have a license. We don't even need to examine what he says in court, he can't be trusted anyway.
You also miss that this unlicensed, illegal investigators testimony is used to breach the privacy of presumably innocent people. You have to have a very good reason to do that. For example, if my friend, he is just an ordinary and presumably honest person, claims that he saw you stealing something, then this may be enough for the police to get a search warrant and then breach your privacy. If that unlicensed, illegal investigator claims that he saw you stealing a car, then this is most likely not enough for the police to get a search warrant. And what the RIAA wanted was the equivalent of a search warrant.
Re:NO CHANCE!?!?! (Score:5, Informative)
What verdicts? I don't recall the RIAA ever winning a single case. Well, one, but that verdict has already been set aside by the judge.
They've never won a contested case.
Re:This is big (Score:4, Informative)
Last time I saw rain fall on parched earth, the rain just sat on top. Almost in disbelief that the rain had actually fallen, the earth rejected it. What water is absorbed does so slowly, leading to flooding with the same amount of water that would be easily absorbed had the earth not been so parched.
Seems to me that if one follows your analogy too closely, one might conclude that a single court case of sanity might precede several courts being resistant to the change, perhaps even angrily so, at least for a time.
Re:Plaintiff's footnote 2 JUDGES ONLY!!! (Score:3, Informative)
It seems to me that you have a record of losing before exactly TWO judges - one Magistrate and one Real judge
I haven't lost any "cases". I said I lost some "motions". I lost 3 motions on the John Doe procedural issues. In the named defendant cases, I made 4 dismissal motions, each based on 2 different topics: (a) the making available issue and (b) the specificity issue as to downloading & distributing. Here is the track record:
-Elektra v. Santangelo: judge denied motion as to (b), didn't say how she was ruling as to (a);
-Maverick v. Goldshteyn: judge denied (b), deferred (a) until after discovery on the ground that he did not understand the technology;
-Electra v. Barker: judge granted motion as to (a) and denied it as to (b);
-Warner v. Cassin: motion never decided because RIAA withdrew the case before it could be decided. There were 7 different judges, no magistrates.
Re:Give those Pirates What they Deserve! (Score:3, Informative)
Could Doe 3'S Lawyer chime in here? (Score:2, Informative)