Judge Says No to RIAA Subpoena Request

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "For at least the second time, a federal judge has dealt the RIAA's campaign against college students a blow by refusing an ex parte motion by the RIAA for a subpoena against college students. In Newport News, Virginia, Judge Walter D. Kelley, Jr., denied the RIAA's motion for information about students at the College of William and Mary. The Court denied the motion outright, saying it was unauthorized by law. (pdf) Last month it was reported that a New Mexico judge had denied a similar motion directed against University of New Mexico students on the ground that it should not have been made ex parte."

Comments

Re:Good to see critical thinking

[EveryNickIsTaken]

This is definitely one where people should read TFA. The judge tears their motion apart, and stops just short of saying, "I award you no points, and may god have mercy upon your soul."

Unlike U WA

[Com2Kid]

UW had to give in so easily why now...?

Re:Unlike U WA

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Actually, W & M likely would have caved in as well, but they didn't have to because the judge caught it before it came to that... You may be right, Kazoo. We'll never know.

But thank goodness for an alert judge, who actually read the law.

Re:Unlike U WA

[ari_j]

W&M has a tendency to cave in, such as to the NCAA regarding the use of Indian logos and the recent temporary removal (until deep-pocket alumni demanded its return) of a cross from the on-campus Wren Chapel (for those unaware, the Christopher Wren Building is the oldest building in continuous academic use in the United States). This motion may have been decided differently had W&M been given the opportunity to be heard. ;)

Re:Good to see critical thinking

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

This is definitely one where people should read TFA. The judge tears their motion apart, and stops just short of saying, "I award you no points, and may god have mercy upon your soul." You're right.

He's saying, in so many words, "the whole statutory basis for your motion is nonexistent.... why didn't you read the statute before citing it?" and "why didn't you mention the real statute for this kind of thing, which DOESN'T allow this kind of motion against a COLLEGE?"

Re:Good to see critical thinking

[karmatic]

I am sure they were treating college as an ISP in the motion. Let's not confuse form over function.

Well, you're either a moron or a person with reading comprehension problems.

Actually, if you read the judgement, they weren't treating them like an ISP. The statute they were attempting to claim authorized their motion was a statute authorizing said motions by the government against a cable company.

The judge basically tells them "There's a DMCA for this sort of thing, and it doesn't authorize this behavior either."

Re:Selective RIAA enfarcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yea, because college kids are the children of the poorest people in America... all those rich kids go right into the workforce. Wait... what's that you say? The opposite is true?

No, I'm afraid that a college student is disproportionately likely to have a Big Important parent, compared to someone who never went to college.

On the other hand, I wouldn't deny that this is in order to exercise selective enforcement... but not because they're afraid of daddy... because a college student probably has just enough money to pay them off without bringing daddy into it (because they *hate* their parents just now) but no where near enough to mount a legal defense. And don't forget, they get the names before they decide who to follow through on... and there are only so many national scale lawmakers.

Re:Selective RIAA enfarcement

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I guarantee this is about selective enforcement, and it could just as easily be that they want to determine who has the most money available to pay them off, as much as concerns over someone's lawyer daddy. Obviously, a college kid with no money isn't worth the effort (other than the PR), but if you find some likely candidates and discover their assets you'll be better able to allocate legal resources. In any event, this seems to have become a money-making venture in its own right, and they'll probably want to prequalify their targets to maximize the take. Of course, it could be for some other reason entirely, and you'd have to be an RIAA lawyer to know what that would be. Based on my dealings with them it's the latter....

"some other reason entirely, and you'd have to be an RIAA lawyer to know what that would be" From what I've seen the most likely reason for the stuff the RIAA lawyers do is that it makes the RIAA lawyers money. If I could point to one golden thread that runs through everything, it is

Do whatever takes the most time and costs the most money in legal fees.