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.'"
This is big (Score:5, Insightful)
It was only a matter of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a sign that the judicial system is finally going to start to treat the RIAA like the mobsters they mimic?
That I don't know. But it certainly is a sign that the Second Circuit judges consider the issues raised by John Doe #3 in the lower court to be serious and important.
Give those Pirates What they Deserve! (Score:2, Insightful)
(a) The pirates deserve to be slammed for STEALING (Yes I said it, because that's what it is!)!
(b) The pirates ALSO deserve all the due process and constitutional protection that the US has to offer--and the RIAA assiduously tries to ignore! You can't slam the thieves until the thieves get a FULL and FAIR day in court.
The Pirates deserve to be hammered, but only after every last one of their constitutional rights is respected!
Re:Give those Pirates What they Deserve! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is big (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think we'll ever be out of the woods.
If the Second Circuit rules as I believe it will, this will mark the end of these abusive litigations by the RIAA.
After this, the RIAA will have to go to court only with proper, scientifically verifiable, legally obtained evidence showing that the person they're suing actually committed copyright infringement, and will have to have proper legal theories and pleadings.
Re:Give those Pirates What they Deserve! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not stealing though, it's breach of contract.
Iterrogative pronouns (Score:4, Insightful)
nsuficiency of the complaint? It seems to me it states clearly what/when.
How about "who?"
Re:Give those Pirates What they Deserve! (Score:5, Insightful)
(a) The pirates deserve to be slammed for STEALING (Yes I said it, because that's what it is!)!
(b) The pirates ALSO deserve all the due process and constitutional protection that the US has to offer--and the RIAA assiduously tries to ignore! You can't slam the thieves until the thieves get a FULL and FAIR day in court.
The Pirates deserve to be hammered, but only after every last one of their constitutional rights is respected!
Assuming we're still talking about digital piracy here, it is NOT stealing, it is infringing. The two have separate legal meanings that have to do with a scarce good being taken away from another person/entity. Copying music does not take that original away, ergo it cannot be stealing, it is infringing.
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree ... lawsuits are the modern equivalent of physical violence, and taking all of someone's assets is the modern murder. Just because we now have a system that allows pillaging and plundering without bloodshed doesn't decrease the devastation that this causes to people and their families.
Lastly, people who lose it all often end it all, completing the 'murder'.
Re:Give those Pirates What they Deserve! (Score:2, Insightful)
Plaintiff's footnote (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Give those Pirates What they Deserve! (Score:3, Insightful)
Unauthorized copying is not stealing because nothing was taken away from the original owner.
Distorting the accusation is, by itself, violating due process and the constitutional protection the accused deserves.
Re:Isn't RIAA's request reasonable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlicensed investigator?
An unlicensed investigator is not allowed to investigate at all. You can ask a friend to check what your wife is doing when you're not at home, you can ask a licensed investigator, but if you hire an unlicensed investigator, he or she is breaking the law. In other words, the so-called "evidence" was found by someone who was breaking the law in doing so. That on its own is not the problem, if the evidence can be checked independently of how it was found. If an unlicensed investigator finds physical evidence, calls the police and the police checks the physical evidence, that's fine. But here, the evidence is the investigator saying "I downloaded this music from this computer". Since the investigator was already breaking the law, clearly anything he or she says cannot be trusted.
Hiring unlicensed investigators also means that the person suing cannot be trusted. In a civil court case, the judge goes by the weight of the evidence. If I can show that I am sued by a person who used illegal means to find evidence, that makes it more likely that the same person will be lying about other things as well.
Re:This is big (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sorry but I have to laugh at the irony of this. Hey, I hope they get shot down too, I hate them as does everyone else... but don't you think "obvious abuse of the legal system" applies to both them and those downloading and sharing copyrighted works? :)
Re:It's about time (Score:1, Insightful)
Depends. If you're 56 years old and a bunch of auto execs with golden parachutes and hundreds of millions net worth say "oh, by the way, we bet on the wrong cars or SUVs so your pension is worthless; you'll work at McDOnalds until you're 85 and can't count change any more..." - Maybe they should kill you instead.
If the same execs tell you at 35 "better go get a job at Walmart, your house will be foreclosed and your kids better not get sick because they're not covered any more and you'll bet eating macaroni and fake cheese for the next 10 years at least and the kids will never go to college..." Maybe they should shoot the lot of you - that would be kinder.
If you're a college student with nothing to lose, who cares if you go bankrupt? Of course, you still can't walk away from those student loans, so fortunately you'll never be in the same situation as that 35yo or the 56yo because you'll never get all that good stuff to lose.
Re:Isn't RIAA's request reasonable? (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, etc. and I'm no fan of the MAFIAA at all... However...
I just read the lower court judge's ruling in denying the motion to quash and I frankly don't see a problem with the judge's reasoning.
You don't see the problem because you are not a lawyer.
Re:This is big (Score:3, Insightful)
If their primary purpose is "to frighten large numbers of ordinary citizens", maybe Homeland Security should have jurisdiction here...
Re:This is big (Score:3, Insightful)
Please reply with: Your credit card, social security number, date of birth, medications that you are (or should be taking) and
everything you have ever written, photographed, performed or created, either at work or for your own enjoyment.
Do you really believe that crap? I understand that denial is an important human psychologic defense mechanism, but can't you understand that "sharing" is just theft? And yes, RIAA / MPAA and friends are wrong to attempt to criminalize the issue. And yes, if they had half-a-brain they would come up with some reasonable accommodation for fair use.
But your idea of "helping people" is at best disingenuous. It smacks of some serious juvenile misunderstanding of how the world works.
Re:This is big (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. The people illegally copying copyrighted works are simply performing an illegal act. They are not asking for the assistance of the judicial system as they do so. (They just rely on it not reaching them.) That's not abuse: That's just ignoring the system.
The RIAA is actively using the assistance of the judicial system to further quasi-legal (at best) ends. That's abuse.
Re:This is big (Score:3, Insightful)
I will be very surprised if they don't try that 'gambit' anyway.
And let's hope that the court decides to retain jurisdiction.
See, I'm trying to take the long view here.
I am not actually anti-copyright; I am opposed to the way current IP laws are unjustly skewed against the customers, heavily in the Big Corp. favor.
IMHO, we need some serious IP law reform, copyright in particular. The whole purpose of copyright has been twisted, defiled, and corrupted beyond recognition.
As long as the RIAA can get away with it's 'shenanigans', IP law will not be reformed.
Slapping down the RIAA is just the first step in stopping the Juggernaut.
Re:This is big (Score:5, Insightful)
the RIAA have a nearly unlimited amount of money to throw at this issue.
Actually, they don't. These are not large companies in the scheme of things (unless you believe that Sony would throw it's core business over the side to protect its media properties), and the RIAA likely only has "millions" to work with. Grassroots opposition and donations from Slashdotters and others who know enough to care can make a real difference here.
The courts aren't vulnerable to being bought the way that politicians are, so it's not a simple matter of whoever writes the biggest check wins - the opposition to the RIAA just needs enough money to stay in the game, not to outspend the RIAA.
Re:It's about time (Score:1, Insightful)
The biggest difference between the RIAA and Tony Soprano is that when Tony's goons come around to steal my money I can call the police and have a reasonable expectation that they'll be on my side.