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 privacy victory

[PeteyG]

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?

Re:NOT a privacy victory

[evilWurst]

While it's not a complete or assured victory, it's very significant.

1) the RIAA can't choose it's favorite legal district anymore. They can't buy influence in one state and then apply that to the entire country.

2) the RIAA can't inconvenience its victims (as much) - forcing the victims to travel across the country is an unfair hardship when _proper_ procedure is to sue in the district in which the alleged violation was committed.

2b) the now-lessened hardship of fighting the RIAA means the RIAA is less able to use the threat of a lawsuit to extort a settlement out of its accused.

3) the effort the RIAA is now required to exert to sue is now more equal to the effort the accused must exert to defend.

The RIAA being allowed to cheaply sue anyone in the place of their choosing was an asymmetrical attack, an unjust abuse of the spirit of our legal system. It allowed them to arbitrarily punish at will.

The article didn't mention the RIAA's ability to issue subpoenas without a judge's consent, but I hope that's been challenged too, as it is also an abuse of the system.

Re:NOT a privacy victory

[Piquan]

1) the RIAA can't choose it's favorite legal district anymore. They can't buy influence in one state and then apply that to the entire country.

I'm not convinced that it won't continue to use its improper practices, and just hope that most people are too ignorant of the law to dispute it. That seems to be the most common play for this sort.

Which means that maybe this article should have been on the front page.

Re:NOT a privacy victory

[DeepRedux]

Not quite. These are federal actions, not state actions. State laws are enforced in state courts, usually organized by county. Federal laws (like copyright) are enforced by federal courts, organized into 94 federal judicial districts. Each state has at least one district.

Re:NOT a privacy victory

[ceejayoz]

Take their money away by boycotting them, and they will be forced to stop.

Oh, yes, because you're gonna get every one of the hundred million teeny boppers who buy RIAA-supported labels to boycott.

RIAA's never gonna get hurt by a boycott.

Our purchases are a privilege they must earn, not a debt we owe!

You may not owe them purchases, but they don't owe you free music if you choose not to purchase. If you don't want to pay for music, fine - but don't claim that gives you a right to get it for free.

Opinions versus reactions

[Sutekh-Acolyte]

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.