Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Quashed
FsG writes "According to an Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release, a Massachusetts district court has ordered that the RIAA subpoenas sent to MIT and Boston College be rejected. This ruling came in response to an RIAA request, filed earlier today, asking that MIT and Boston College be ordered to comply with subpoenas sent to them a month ago. 'We urge other colleges and Internet service providers to take similar steps to protect their users' privacy,' said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn." Following up on this story. Forcing the RIAA to have their subpoenas issued from the local court rather than Washington a) is legally correct and b) makes it harder (more expensive) for them to issue mass quantities.
The RIAA will just refile the subpoenas in the proper jurisdiction. This will just slow them down. This is a victory for the proper procedure of filing subpoenas, and NOT privacy!
fp?
no thanks
I'm not arguing that the DMCA is a Good or Bad Thing, but it is law and it allows copyright holders to issue subpoenas without going through a court. Verizon was the test case and the RIAA won, hence there's a precedent ruling that their behaviour is "legally correct".
The RIAA is nothing more than a bunch of leeches trying to shut down freedoms of people, using tactics similar to the railway tycoons of the olden days. If the music and movie industry wasn't so corrupt to begin with (ala $5/popcorn), they likely wouldn't see all their wealth circling the drain.
:)
These industries are collectively nothing more than robber barrons of yore. What they need to do is pay actors a living wage, and that's it. Drop the profits and lower ticket prices. Drop the CD prices.
John Stuart Mill once said that progress was an unbending trajectory toward Utopia. He was wrong, but still it's the thought that counts, right?
Finally a Judge who understands the law, and is willing to stand up to the RIAA. Of course, they'll sue him next.
You guys should have seen the victory dance I was choreographing in between reading the headline and the content.
"Derp de derp."
What's wrong with capitalism? Well, plenty, but that doesn't mean it's a decently good system.
However, it is not a magic bullet. It has weaknesses. So we've come up with laws to cover most of them: fraud, theft, intellectual property, collusion, illegal monopolies. All these things are products of our capitalist economy.
In my humble opinion, the RIAA and MPAA seem to have discovered some loophole between 'collusion' and 'illegal monopoly' by alternately shifting blame between the member companies and the associations themselves.
Capitalism is a system, and like any system can be abused. Whenever we stop one type of abuse, someone will discover another. This is what 'trade group associations' are doing, in my opinion. Illegal monopolies and collusion are both harmful to the free market, so there are laws against both. I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest that the MPAA and RIAA's obscene lobbying power is also detrimental to the free market.
Unfortunately, they are quite capable of using their obscene lobbying power to protect themselves from such accusations (at least at a governmental level). And it'll take a hell of a lot more than a bunch of people pissing and moaning on Slashdot to get anything to happen about it. As usual, the EFF has the right idea, but they don't have even a tiny fraction of the power of the RIAA, MPAA, or any other major lobbying group (Liquor, Tobacco, Auto manufacturers, etc). Money is power in a capitalist country.
Just my random thoughts. And yes, I am a bleeding heart liberal, thanks.
Random and weird software I've written.
Judge Tauro sits on the US District Court for Massachusets, which is not the same thing as a "Massachusets Court."
If his ruling holds, the RIAA would have to act thru the hundred odd US District courts, not quite the same burden as applying in every local court.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be technically a federal subpeona (I assume there is such a thing) since it involves multiple states and interstate operations (i.e. the internet)? With the DMCA being a federal law, and the internet being country-wide (well, world-wide really) why would the subpoena not come from a federal court instead of a locality?
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
By not going thru washington, and going thru a local court, its not as easy to get the U.S. Citizen vs. citizen of the united states of america argument. its still possible, but harder.
if it comes from washington, and you claim your citizenship (IE citizen of the united states of america not US Citizen) then washington cant do a damn thing to you.
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
Federal courts exist under the jurisdiction granted them by Congress. One of these areas is "federal question" jurisdiction. It's what lets you bring some claims immediately in federal court instead of finding some other reason (e.g. diversity of citizenship between states).
One of the biggest issues of bringing suit in federal court is the problem of "forum-shopping." It's patently unfair (no pun intended) that if you bring suit in one court versus another, you might get a better result. This leads to a whole other host of Erie problems involving the application of state law in federal courts, which is another discussion for another time.
To clarify: you don't have to go "through Washington" to sue in federal court; it's an issue of the jurisdiction created for the courts by Congress in the area of patent/copyright claims.
If the DMCA allows a subpoena to be send without a court order, then lets set up the filesharing software to track RIAA transactions so that we can issue a subpoena to them each time they sniff around on our shared directories. Turn it around and bury them in a legal morass.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Bitch Slap those assholes from the RIAA!!!
All of that $5 popcorn goes to the theater that you watch your movie at. The reason for this is that only 20% of the ticket price goes to the theater. If a ticket is $8-$10 the theater is only receiving $1.60 to $2 while the cost to show that movie is lets say, $2000 (rent, labor, licensing, insurance, etc) per showing but at each showing only 70 people buy a ticket then the theater actually loses money!!
So how do they stay in business? Simple, that $5 bucket of popcorn and a long running movie. All of the money spent at the snack bar in your theater goes to the theater and keeps it showing movies, most of your ticket price goes to Hollywood. On the upside, the longer a movie plays in the theater the greater a percentage that the theater gets from Hollywood! A theater can receive up to 55% of the ticket price but only after Hollywood decides that they have milked the movie for all it's worth.
The faster a movie bombs (e.g. Hulk, Gigli, etc) the faster they leave the theater but their whole run will have lost money for the theater. Good, long running movies (e.g. Titanic [Blech!], Greek Wedding, etc) make money for the theater, but Hollywood makes less.
To keep your local theater alive and showing movies, buy the popcorn, watch that movie after the first month and if it's no longer in the theater it was probably very shitty and you can watch it on DVD in a month.
Hollywood thrives on blockbuster weekends, theaters thrive on long runs and popcorn.
NarratorDan
"If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you really don't understand it." - Niels Bohr
Judge's order to quash
Short and to the point. A single sentence:
The court hereby orders that: 1. Because Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2) and (b)(2) do not permit a subpoena for production issued in Washington, D.C., to be validly served in Massachusetts, Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order [#1] is ALLOWED.
So I went and located Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2) and (b)(2).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 45. Subpoena
(a) Form; Issuance.
(2) A subpoena commanding attendance at a trial or hearing shall issue from the court for the district in which the hearing or trial is to be held. A subpoena for attendance at a deposition shall issue from the court for the district designated by the notice of deposition as the district in which the deposition is to be taken. If separate from a subpoena commanding the attendance of a person, a subpoena for production or inspection shall issue from the court for the district in which the production or inspection is to be made.
(b) Service.
(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (ii) of subparagraph (c)(3)(A) of this rule, a subpoena may be served at any place within the district of the court by which it is issued, or at any place without the district that is within 100 miles of the place of the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection specified in the subpoena or at any place within the state where a state statute or rule of court permits service of a subpoena issued by a state court of general jurisdiction sitting in the place of the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection specified in the subpoena. When a statute of the United States provides therefor, the court upon proper application and cause shown may authorize the service of a subpoena at any other place. A subpoena directed to a witness in a foreign country who is a national or resident of the United States shall issue under the circumstances and in the manner and be served as provided in Title 28, U.S.C. 1783.
45(a)(2) Says that the subpoenas should never have been issued. The Washington D.C. court screwed up in signing them.
45(b)(2) Says that even if the they were valid they cann't be legally served. As far as the law is concerned they may as well be printed in invisible ink. Legally you haven't seen it and don't have to comply.
That is federal law governing the subpoena process. It applies to ALL of the RIAA's subpoenas. That means that every single one of the RIAA's subpoenas are INVALID unless they happen to be directed at an ISP in the Washington D.C. area.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Beware... this may get off topic.
It's interesting to see how many people vehemently oppose the RIAA; of course, as a sane individual, I'm one of them.
At the same time, I'm not surprised that a greater amount of reaction hasn't been taken against the RIAA's abuses of the United States' legal system and its obvious government manipulation through corporate power.
Historically, humans are much more likely to take action when they oppose something that legally allows others to do something they don't like, as compared to when they support something (human rights, for example) being challenged or when they are merely indirectly affected by it. This is how ultraconservative legislation (for example) is often passed, when a minority supports it rather than the majority: Most individuals against the legislation quietly oppose the issue, without taking action. A very small minority will work intensely and consistently to get its way, and they usually succeed. This is compared to the opposition, which takes action in small amounts that aren't usually consistent (like opposition that fizzles out after a large protest), and the opposition tends to be less "fire-breathing" as the other side.
Good examples of this are Minnesota's state legislature revoking domestic partner benefits for state employees due to a budget crisis and the influence of fundamentalists, and perhaps (please don't flame) the questionable recent war in the Middle East. (Disregarding whatever figures CNN or FoxNews may spout, I happen to be among those who doubt the majority in the United States actually supported the war. Ever.)
(You know, the one for oil? Oops... I mean, the one to hoist an unfriendly regime? Oops... I mean, the war to free innocent people from corruption, torture, and terror by murdering them and continuing to cause instability and terror?)
Back on track... the lack of reaction taken against the RIAA is disappointing but not odd, especially with the obvious issue that filesharing copyrighted material is illegal. But this isn't about copyright infringement, it's about the RIAA exploiting its resources while people just kind of let it slide by and wait to see what happens. Great thanks to the EFF for doing something constructive about it.
It seems that, for the most part, the only other people speaking out and taking some action (however small) are the people who've been sued. That is not to forget the generous people who have donated to pay the enormous charges against RIAA victims.
Finally, I must confess that I personally have taken no real action to fight the RIAA, though I should.
Am I missing something or does everybody have the ability to rent video games and movies...or is this not a reality? Seems to me that if i can have entertainment for a couple days for $3 a movie or less than why would i ever want to buy a $15 music cd? We should be able to rent the latest cd's from video stores and anything ancient, out of print or 10 years or older should be available in the public library. At least the companies would have to make quality product on a regular basis and kids would have a better appreciation of all the out of print and otherwise unavailable music that has been lost in the dustbin of obscurity and time. Just a thought.
The radio is free for the listening, and online file trading is the new radio.
That's a silly comparison.
Listening to the radio is a passive activity. Online file trading (copying) isn't. Yes the music played on the radio is free, but it's just a promotion/teaser. With radio, you can't listen to a particular song ANY TIME YOU WANT TO. They want you hear the song, like it, and then go BUY the CD!
He was wrong, but still it's the thought that counts, right?
Well, not when the quote is totally bogus. Btw, Anti-RIAA != Anti-capitalist.
Support Israeli punk bands. Man Alive.
why would the subpoena not come from a federal court instead of a locality?
Because, as it has been pointed out several times, there are scores of federal courts, one in each locality.
Will I retire or break 10K?
We should be able to rent the latest cd's from video stores and anything ancient, out of print or 10 years or older should be available in the public library.
In 1984, the U.S. Congress banned the "rental, lease, or lending" of phonorecords without the express consent of both the recording artists' record labels and the songwriters' music publishers. Find the details in 17 USC 109(b).
Will I retire or break 10K?
I never believed the war on Iraq was for oil. After a bit of research, I have come to believe it was for the survival of the US as an economic superpower. Read on just a little bit more; there's a point to this.
The US is dependent on currency reserves. Other countries' currency reserves, to be precise. Most of the national deficit is financed by the US selling dollars. Dollars that go into other currency reserves, as the dollar is considered the most credible (and economically stable) currency in the world, and therefore the best currency to keep in a country's currency reserve.
Hence, the US as it stands today is economically dependent on the USD having the largest credibility of all world currencies.
The war on Iraq wasn't about oil; the world opinion would never allow the US to keep a conquered nation's resources.
It wasn't about the UN either. The US ended up not caring shit about what the UN thinks or doesn't think about attacking, which was a clear demonstration.
We know that the WMD evidence was faked already.
Nor was it about Saddam. Sure, he's a real bad guy whose ass deserves a hot date with my boot, and all the boots ever manufactured for that matter, but he's not alone about that. There are lots of warthugs leading countries really badly down there: Syria, Iraq, Tazhikstan, Kazhakstan, etc. Including Saudi Arabia's house Saudi, who are best buddies with the US. So why was Iraq singled out and an eye-popping amount of dollars spent on correcting that country's ways?
Because they threatened the dollar's credibility.
Iraq had switched to tying its oil prices to the euro. They were charging in euros per barrel, not dollars per barrel. Two days after this switch, the euro had grown 25% in value against the dollar.
Let me rephrase that: because of a decision taken in Iraq, American companies lost 25% of their market value against their European competitors in less than a week.
In addition, there is a potential for a snowball effect: more credibility to the euro means more countries switching to use the euro in its currency reserves, which means more credibility still, etc. Estimates have said that the dollar would lose about 40% of its value if this happens, in addition to the US being unable to fund its deficit by selling money. In short, it would be nothing less than a disaster for the American economy.
This is why spending lots and lots of millions of dollars on the war on Iraq made economic sense. The US is not prone to doing things that don't benefit the US in one way or another, and in this light, it makes perfect sense to intervene and make sure that the euro doesn't gain more momentum, even if it costs a little.
(For the conspiracy-inclined, do a search on "dollar euro iraq", or similar keywords.)
As a side note, up until recently, there were four countries using the euro in their currency reserves. Venezuela joined the club just recently. The other three are Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Rings a bell?
Oh, and Iraq is back on track now. One of the first actions of the interim government was to go back to selling oil for dollars per barrel.
No no, you must have confused RIAA with SCO.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
Only because somebody else is paying for the music you listen, in hopes of getting you to listen to their advertisments also.
And everybody pays for that music inderectly (in prices of the advertised products). So it's far from free.
Online, it's harder to get people to pay for advertisements (and then of course there are all the too-easy-to-pirate issues etc). And indeed most of us just hate online advertising! The price to pay for this is that we must then pay for the content. And IMHO this is just fine (or will be, if there's ever going to be a successful international micropayment system in place).
The laws about where the federal government has jurisdiction, vs. state governments, are fairly clear. And despite whatever crackpot interpretation people can come up with, if you can't make it work in court (which no-one has), it's meaningless, and could actually be harmful to the individual trying to use it.