RIAA's Boston University Subpoena Quashed

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "As first reported by p2pnet, the motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena seeking identities of Boston University students has been granted, at least for the moment. In a 52-page opinion (pdf) the Judge concluded that she could not decide whether or not to quash until she had seen the college's 'Terms of Service Agreement' for internet service. It was only then she could decide what 'expectation of privacy' the students had. She quashed the subpoena calling for the student identities, and told them they could go ahead with a subpoena just for the terms of service agreement. Interestingly the decision was issued on the very same day as the judge in Elektra v. Barker came to some of the same conclusions."

Comments

Won't hold forever

[Todd Knarr]

I'd note that I don't expect these roadblocks to the RIAA getting student's identities to hold forever. It simply isn't permissible in the US legal system to prevent a plaintiff with a legitimate claim from discovering the identity of the person they have that claim against. The best the students can hope for in the long run is to require the RIAA to prove that the IP address and client they have a record of did in fact commit copyright infringement. That's probably a significant hurdle, but if the RIAA clears it then the students will not be able to block discovery of their identities.

Re:Won't hold forever

[TheRealMindChild]

It simply isn't permissible in the US legal system to prevent a plaintiff with a legitimate claim from discovering the identity of the person they have that claim against.

That's just it! Prove to me you HAVE a legitimate claim, THEN you can have the name. Else, bringing up any bogus lawsuit would be easy means of finding anyone's identity.

Re:Won't hold forever

[evanbd]

I'd note that I don't expect these roadblocks to the RIAA getting student's identities to hold forever. It simply isn't permissible in the US legal system to prevent a plaintiff with a legitimate claim from discovering the identity of the person they have that claim against. The best the students can hope for in the long run is to require the RIAA to prove that the IP address and client they have a record of did in fact commit copyright infringement. That's probably a significant hurdle, but if the RIAA clears it then the students will not be able to block discovery of their identities.

So perhaps the courts should be requiring them to demonstrate the legitimateness of the claim first. Especially the highly-questionable joinder of unrelated cases solely for purposes of discovery, followed by dropping of the suit and re-filing individual suits.

Re:Won't hold forever

[TubeSteak]

Students are also a special breed type of legal entity, since the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) gives them extra privacy protections that the average person would not have.

I'm surprised the Judge is debating whether the school's TOS for internet use trumps FERPA.

Re:Won't hold forever

[CorSci81]

I had a question regarding the improper joinder. I noticed on pages 9 and 10 this judge has consolidated multiple John Doe cases on account of "similar, even virtually identical, issues of law and fact" for "administrative efficiency". Whereas other judges have frequently brought up this same issues of improper joinder. What's the difference (if any) in these circumstances? I fail to see why consolidation should be appropriate here where other judges have considered it improper.

Re:Won't hold forever

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

1. The joinder is flatly prohibited under the federal rules.

2. Judge Gertner's automatic consolidation of each new RIAA case is, in my personal opinion, also contrary to law under these circumstances, and is certainly grossly unfair to the defendants.

Re:Won't hold forever

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

That was an unusual situation; you shouldn't generalize from one trial. I believe that the RIAA is mostly going to get killed in the jury trials, and so does the RIAA believe that, or else there would have been more than just one jury trial in 30,000 cases over 4 1/2 years.

Re:Getting Closer

[Dada Vinci]

The only court that can eliminate RIAA suits across the country is the Supreme Court. This case is in a trial court. The powers of a trial court are MUCH more limited.

A trial-level court can only make decisions that are binding in the case that it is hearing. Right now the case is in the federal court for the District of Massachusetts. The RIAA could just as easily file a suit against different college students in a different federal court and get a different outcome.

The next stop for this case would be an apellate court. The federal Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is the appellate court that would hear the appeal. If the appellate court rules in favor of the students, then all of the trial courts in a limited geographic area (Maine, Mass, New Hampshire, Rhode Island) are bound. If the RIAA filed outside that area then a different court could come up with a different outcome.

The next stop from the First Circuit would be the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the laws is binding nationwide. But, the Supreme Court hears less than 1% of the cases that people appeal. The odds of this case setting a national precedent are VERY low.

Of course, other judges can be pursuaded by the reasoning in this case, but there's nothing binding about it.

Re:Getting Closer

[nomadic]

The only court that can eliminate RIAA suits across the country is the Supreme Court. This case is in a trial court. The powers of a trial court are MUCH more limited.

A trial-level court can only make decisions that are binding in the case that it is hearing. Right now the case is in the federal court for the District of Massachusetts. The RIAA could just as easily file a suit against different college students in a different federal court and get a different outcome.

But precedent is really important where you want to bind other future litigants. When the litigant is the same you can get an order in one court that will bind them no matter where they operate. In this case the same entities are commencing the various lawsuits in the different jurisdictions. The court could enter, for example, an anti-suit injunction against the RIAA to prevent further similar lawsuits if they wanted, and if the RIAA filed the same suit in a different federal court they'd get slapped with contempt in the court issuing the anti-suit injunction.

Re:Getting Closer

[Dada Vinci]

Anything you said might make sense if the students were actually suing the RIAA or filing an anti-SLAPP lawsuit. But the students are moving to quash a subpeona, not suing the RIAA for malicious prosecution. The fact that the judge has already called it a close question, in effect, by issuing this ruling means that the judge is extremely unlikely to, on her own, decide to turn this into an anti-suit injunction.

terms of use policy

[pikine]

Do they really need to subpoena it? It's right here.

Re:terms of use policy

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't subpoena-ing to find out what the TOU *is*, they've been granted the right to ask for the information, and ONLY the information that school is willing to give out, as provided by the TOU.

So if the TOU says, we'll give first names, or birthdays, or just a big, "it was used on tuesday from 3-5pm by SOMEONE", then that's all the RIAA can ask for. They can't ask to know anything that a student can expect to have protected via the TOU.

Re:Here's the thing

[corsec67]

And at the school I went to (CU), once you signed up a MAC address as being valid, any device could use that MAC to authenticate against the wifi service.

I actually used that to get my PSP online when it first came out, Wipeout was the only game that could get online, but the simple web browser (something like Links with graphics in terms of capability) couldn't figure out the login page that CU put up.
So, I had a friend change the MAC address on his laptop to that of my PSP, I signed it up as being "mine", and then my PSP worked on the wifi.

So, the the device I used to register the MAC address had absolutely nothing to do with the device that I was using most of the time that actually had that MAC address built in.

A MAC address is about as identifying as a nametag.