RIAA Tactical Legal Victory vs SBC

lurker412 writes "The RIAA has won a tactical victory in its legal battle with SBC Communications/PacBell Internet Services. CNet News reports that a San Francisco judge has moved the case to a District of Columbia federal court. SBC had resisted turning over the identities of purported coyright infringers to the RIAA. While the San Francisco court ruled on procedural grounds only, the DC court is the same one that previously ruled against Verizon in a similar attempt to contest the DMCA."

Comments

Re:Passing the buck

[KrispyKringle]

It's not a case of passing the buck. It's a case of jurisdictional integrity, which you should appreciate that the court had. The law being contested here is a federal law, and therefore is under federal jurisdiction.

Informed decision? Try that yourself ;)

Re:RIAA is just a corrupt oligarchy

[nharmon]

Thats not the way it works.

Imagine that you are a programmer for Unisys. You create a large amount of code that your employer sells. Let's say this code is stolen, and your employer sues the theif. You wouldn't have any claim to damages in this situation.

Artists are contractors who sell their music to companies who have the resources to market and produce it. They aren't any less or more special than others who do the same thing.

Re:RIAA is just a corrupt oligarchy

[terrymr]

The difference is that the the computer code in your example is "A work for hire" your employer owns it.

In the case of music, the songs are licensed by the artist to the record label who sells them to the public. The artist retains the copyright ... some labels try to get an assignment of copyright from the artist but I don't think they've gotten away with it very often.

Re:Slightly offtopic question

[RealProgrammer]

You have to have standing WRT the case. You can sue anyone, but the first hurdle is finding the right jurisdiction, then comes your standing in the matter, and then establishing that you have been wronged somehow.

If you sue GM saying their steering wheels are too slick and could be dangerous if you leave your sunroof open in the rain, the questions the Court will ask are

1. Why are you asking me about this, and not a lower court or the one in Detroit?
2. Are you the legal representative for a GM customer, or are you claiming to be endangered by the existence of these vehicles?

Sometimes you have to show that there is a reason why the court should step in at all, but that's based on the actual content of the dispute in the case. Judges would generally rather not rule; there has to be some reason their power is needed to resolve the dispute.

In the case of a class action, the original entity bringing the suit has to show cause, and that other people have been harmed in the same way. Class actions are ostensibly intended to streamline the court system, not give opportunistic lawyers a chance to pilfer the Fortune 500.

Re:Slightly offtopic question

[McChump]

This is a gross overstatement. Generally, lawsuits have to be prosecuted by a party with legal "standing," and must be prosecuted by the "real party in interest." Class actions are a limited exception to this rule, and one the RIAA cannot take advantage of.

It's true that the RIAA can claim to be acting as a representative of a party, but if it is not actually acting as that party's representative and this fact is brought to the court's attention, the suit will be dismissed.