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

[pr0c]

Not true, if 1 court is sympathetic to the RIAA and they get all their subpoenas through that court...

This way there will be some courts (like this one) that will reject their subpoenas. It could snowball against them this way.

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.

Re:NOT a privacy victory

[macdaddy357]

The radio is free for the listening, and online file trading is the new radio. As for the teenyboppers, they could easily be driven to the counterfeit disc vendors at flea markets and street corners if the the discs at the mall won't play in a computer, but the pirated ones will. The RIAA needs to decide which side of the digital revolution to be on. Right now, they are on the heads in the basket side.

Re:NOT a privacy victory

[ceejayoz]

Radio quality is between 30 and 50 kbps, whereas files downloaded over P2P networks can be anywhere from 128 kbps to full CD quality. Radio stations also pay a license fee to play songs, whereas P2P networks do not. The two are not at all comparable.

If people shift to counterfeit disc vendors (which I've not seen a single one of in my life in this country), that doesn't make it right or legal. Not only that, but the increase would paint one huge bullseye on those vendors, just like Napster painted one on P2P.

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.

Spin?

[Andy Smith]

Forcing the RIAA to have their subpoenas issued from the local court rather than Washington a) is legally correct

What a curious statement of "fact", if that's what it's intended to be. The implication is that issuing them without going through a local court is legally incorrect, which is an interesting take on things, ie: wrong.

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".

Re:Spin?

[Piquan]

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 way I understand it, the DMCA allows copyright holders to issue subpoenas without going through a judge. They still have to go through a court.

This just clarified which court they had to go through.

Finally

[rmohr02]

Finally a Judge who understands the law, and is willing to stand up to the RIAA. Of course, they'll sue him next.

Deceptive headline

[NanoGator]

You guys should have seen the victory dance I was choreographing in between reading the headline and the content.

What's wrong with capitalism, eh?

[Cecil]

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.

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.

Federal court?

[dirk]

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?

Re:Don't ya just hate em?

[bmetzler]

Capitalism is FREE MARKET. That means that I should have the choice of going to a movie theater where the popcorn costs less. Is there one? No.

No, that's not what capitalism means. Capitalism means, for one thing, that the moview theater can't take $1 from 5 people who don't get popcorn to give to you for $1 intead of $5.

It also doesn't mean that you get to pay what you want for something. It means that the seller and the buyer meet at a point where a transaction takes place. So if that point is $5 for popcorn, but you aren't willing to meet at that point, then you don't get to make a transaction. There's no right in capitalism for paying what you want.

Think of the stock market. I want to pay $5 a share for MSFT, but I get no sellers. Is that unfair?

-Brent

Here's an Idea...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

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.

Re:Here's an Idea...

[oni]

which part of "shared directories" do you not understand?

You want to hurt the RIAA? You want to "turn it around" on them? Me too. Here's an idea: download iRATE Radio (it's on sourceforge. I'm not going to link it for you). Use the program to build a collection of free and legal mp3s. Go through the trouble of appending words like " - similar to artist XYZ" to the end of the mp3 filenames. Then share this stuff through kazaa. That way, you'll turn a few clueless people on to indie bands.

oh, and don't share copyrighted stuff. If the RIAA takes you to court for sharing free indie songs counter sue for big $$$.

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.

-

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.

17 USC 109

[yerricde]

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).

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.