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.

Comments

Not a local Judge

[bmasel]

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.

The legal details, for those interested

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:NOT a privacy victory

[macdaddy357]

The few cents in licencing radio stations pay out per song are peanuts compared the the millions per year they recieve in payola before they will play a song. Besides, end users do not have to pay these fees anyway.

I don't endorse counterfeit discs, but a kid who has five dollars to spend on music, not 20 is going to buy them, won't give a rat's ass whether it is legal, and won't percieve himself as doing anything wrong. The major labels have a dying business model, just as the horse and buggy industry did once the automobile was invented. The labels must accept the digital revolution, or their place in the dustbin of history.

Re:Don't ya just hate em?

[Mr. Slippery]

What's wrong with capitalism? If you don't like the price of popcorn, don't buy it. If you can't afford the cost of a CD, spend your money someplace else.

First, you're confusing capitalism (a system based on control of capital resources by a minority of government-backed "owners") with the free market (a method of determining what good and services should be provided).

Second, a system of state-created monopolies on making copies isn't a free market. Especially when that system goes far beyond it's Constitutional mandate. which allows such monopolies only for authors and inventors for a limited time - not for their corporate masters of inheritors, and not for years after their death.