Slashdot Mirror
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."
It is most gratifying to see a Judge deny an ex parte application like that. I.e., only the RIAA was in court. No one else -- not the students, not even the university -- knew about it or had a chance to say anything.
This is an example of a good judge doing his homework and actually reading the statutes, and not being impressed by pounds of paper and doubletalk.
I am very happy to see judges like Judge Kelley and Judge Garcia taking a close look, and saying to the RIAA thugs : "Wait a minute, this is still a court of law, not a schoolyard where bullies can just do whatever they want to defenseless people. We have a rule of law, here, buddy."
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
My hand goes up. Ex parte is a very common legal term meaning to meet with a judge without both parties being present. Normally, no matter what the motion, when you meet with a judge, both sides get to be present. These subpoenas are being issued with only the RIAA being present.
Yep, the RIAA prefers to do everything the sneaky way.
They find it inconvenient if someone else shows up to tell the judges the truth.
Of course, as Judge Garcia was kind enough to point out, their "ex parte" tactics are illegal. Just a minor detail.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
That's a tough call. Judges don't make laws, lawmakers do that ... and frequently they do it badly. Giving the judiciary some wiggle-room can prevent abuse as much as permit it. Yeah, it's a double-edged sword.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If I was a parent of a UW student I'd be mad.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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...
The first time I was summoned to jury duty, I though 'hey, way to get paid for doing nothing!', and I was right. Three days sitting, reading a book, waiting to be called. Cool.
Second time, I got put on a case. To say I 'quickly became dis-enamored with the legal system' would be like saying 'upon exposure to heat, the gasoline rapidly oxidized'. True, but a major understatement.
It was a civil case, 6 jurors. A woman driving a mini-van backed into a pedestrian, knocking him down, breaking his collarbone. I could go on for hours describing the details, but the relevant facts are:
1) the man admited to leaving the crosswalk and walking diagonally down the road
2) the man's statements contradicted themselves, to the point he comitted perjury
3) In my opinion, the woman acted reasonably. She checked her side mirror, rear miror, and them turned her upper body and head so she could look out the rear window of the mini-van as she reversed. The fact that the man was in the middle of the block, in the middle of the street, in her blind spot, was not her fault.
4) the man was asking for over a half-million dollars, just for 'pain and suffering'.
Long story short, it was my opinion that, since the woman acted reasonably, and the man was the one who left the crosswalk (and later lied under oath), she owed him nothing. Unfortunately, the other 5 jurors did not see it that way. This was New York, a city where there are more pedestrians than drivers. I could practically see the $-signs in people eyes. I actually had one juror say 'If you got hit by a car, wouldn't you want to get compensated?' I replied 'I wouldn't expect money if I was the one at fault."
Since a civil case does not need a unanimous verdict, in the end we found for the plaintiff. Now the matter of how much came into play. The "ammount to adaquately compensate him for his losses" was determined (by the other 5) to be around $130,000. They knocked off 35% because they magnanamously agreed it was 'partly his fault' that he jay-walked behind a moving vehicle. That brought the award to abotu $100,000. Then one particularly bright juror piped up with thas shocked: "...but his lawyer will take 1/3, wo we have to give him more", like it's our job to pay the mans lawyer!! We didn't know the man's legal fees. Heck, the laywer could have been a friend doing it for free, for all we knew.
And then something happened that... put it all in perspective. Soemthing that made me realize why the jury system in this country, while it was no doubt a good idea when it was created, is no longer wise.
They decided to give him $133,000.
Now, dear reader, please take a moment to do the math. The jurors wanted to award the men 'X', such that when 1/3X was removed, the man ended up with $100,000.
100,000 = X - 1/3X
100,000 = 2/3X
3/2 * 100,000 = X
150,000 = x
I was doing this in 5th grade, but these MORONS couldn't even get this SIMPLE math right. I tried to correct tham. Twice. Then I shut up, since their error lowered the award I thought should be $0 anyway.
.
Don't even get me started on my 3rd jury duty. Undercover Cop had audio and video of the defendant selling him drugs on 6 out of 7 occasions (the first time they weren't recording as the UC was just supposed to meet the guy, but the guy was so eager to sell, he sold to the UC that time too.) They have video of him walking away counting the money, smiling. The defense ADMITTED the defendant handed over drugs for money on each occasion. Their only defense? 'AGENCY'- the man wasn't 'selling' drugs to the UC, he was 'purchasing drugs FOR the UC', as his 'agent'. Of course, the defendant seem to already have the drugs the UC wanted on hand, and the video of him counting the money, smiling, implies he was making a profit (making a profit from either side means he no longer met the legal definition of an 'agent'). Oh- and he'd been to jail 2 time before for... you guessed it, dealing drugs.
There was one minor marijuana charge w