Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Quashed

Posted by michael on from the world's-smallest-violin dept.

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.

3 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. Finally by rmohr02 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  2. Deceptive headline by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  3. Re:NOT a privacy victory by evilWurst · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.