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.

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.

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.

-

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).