Appeals Court Stays RIAA Subpoena Vs. Students

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.'"

It's about time

[quangdog]

Is this a sign that the judicial system is finally going to start to treat the RIAA like the mobsters they mimic?

Re:This is big

[Jason Levine]

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.

Re:This is big

[CodeBuster]

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? Will they be forced to concentrate on fewer defendants and spend more effort going after them? Will they finally give up if they can only go after a limited number at a time who, even if convicted, cannot pay $250,000+ damages anyway? One cannot squeeze blood from turnips after all and if the primary goal of the RIAA is to file lots of cases spamigation style, then won't their primary purpose, which is to frighten large numbers of ordinary citizens on the cheap, be thwarted? I think that if the appellate court outcome renders their current strategy uneconomical then the RIAA will try to use their newfound clout with the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress to push through some very onerous new legislation and encourage the government, and therefore the tax payers, to shoulder the massively increased costs per defendant by having the Justice Department do their dirty work for them. I'm afraid that we're not out of the woods yet.

NO CHANCE!?!?!

[furby076]

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.

Wait, I am missing something. In the US doesn't the prosecution have to have a defendent before they can start preceedings? They can investigate all they like but you can't prosecute without a defendent. What someone is going to knock on my door one day and say "BTW you have been found guilty of murder, your trial happened last month, your getting the chair"??

The RIAA opposed the motion, arguing that John Doe's appeal had no chance of success.

I enjoyed this one... "Your honor, don't grant the appeal, they have no chance of winning. It would be silly to even honor their request. BTW, if you do what we say they WILL have no chance of winning and that makes us right, so you need to do as we say because we are right and you would not want to be on the side of wrong, because we are right."

Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

I am constantly hearing on /. that mediasentry does not have an investigators license. I have to say I don't understand the process that well, but I figured it would be illegal to operate without a license. Shouldn't the cops or fbi be shutting down the company? I am glad to final hear that case evidence will final be forming for the RIAA's process. It will make future attempts by the RIAA much harder if the case is thrown out.

Re:It's about time

[nomadic]

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.

Or at least their law clerks do...

Re:NO CHANCE!?!?!

[ausekilis]

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.

What does that mean for past cases that were not settled out of court? Do they get reheard? Do their verdicts get overturned?

It seems to me that if a court is found to have not followed the letter of the law, some action regarding those involved should be taken. It could be a slap on the wrist for the Judge presiding the case, perhaps the lawyers on either side.

Re:This is big

[Weaselmancer]

Are we allowed to record those proceedings?

Re:Lies, damn lies, statistic, and RIAA motions.

[Locke2005]

This is a civil, not criminal matter. Downloading a file containing copyrighted material is not the same as murder. Also, if the network is using DHCP and recording MAC addresses associated with each DHCP lease, and anybody on the network could have used that address, how exactly are they going to prove that it was you? Hint: If you are on Ethernet, use Ethereal to capture all traffic on a LAN segment, then set your MAC address to one of those captured and then use a different LAN segment. Voila -- the RIAA sues someone else for your nefarious deeds! Extra points if you can figure out the MAC address of a tenured Law Professor! All I'm sayin' is that hardware addresses aren't like fingerprints, DNA, license plates or phone numbers. They are more like "HELLO, My Name is ____" stickers. You can fill them in with whatever name you want, which makes them very unreliable in terms of associating you with any particular use of the network.

Re:Lies, damn lies, statistic, and RIAA motions.

[Khyber]

They'd have to prove that you changed the MAC address - And the only way to prove that against ISP logs went away when the unique processor serial number that started in the Pentium 3 line disappeared because of privacy concerns.