Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Excludes 3 "John Does" From RIAA Subpoena

Posted by kdawson on from the sue-doe-actions dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of the RIAA's 'John Doe' cases targeting Boston University students, after the University wrote to the Court saying that it could not identify three of the John Does 'to a reasonable degree of technical certainty,' Judge Nancy Gertner deemed the University's letter a 'motion to quash,' and granted it, quashing the subpoena as to those defendants. In the very brief docket entry (PDF) containing her decision, she noted that 'compliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery.' There is an important lesson to be learned from this ruling: if the IT departments of the colleges and universities targeted by the RIAA would be honest, and explain to the Courts the problems with the identification and other technical issues, there is a good chance the subpoenas will be vacated. Certainly, there is now a judicial precedent for that principle. One commentator asks whether this holding 'represents the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops.'"

6 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. It's obvious that what we need is... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...a new law requiring better IP tracking built into all new routers and laptops.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Sancho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, gosh, when you spin it that way, who'd let themselves be used?!

      Besides, it's not about gathering evidence. The RIAA and their investigative agencies do that. Universities just provide a name.

    2. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Is having a static home address (123 Cherry Lane) preventing anonymity in the real world?"
      As long as you are not required to display it on yourself everywhere you go, no.

      "Is that a valid comparison?"
      Maybe, changing the MAC address of your computer to someone's else (or spoofing an IP address) to do something wrong is similiar to yelling "I am " to the police while running away from the police.

      "It seems like the point above could/should be a concern to an average user, retaining your identity?"
      Absolutely, but there is not much you can do before the police knocks at your door.

  2. Re:Death Knell? by azgard · · Score: 1, Funny

    'death knell for the RIAA' is getting to be 'Year for Linux on the Desktop'.

    So, in 2009?

  3. Re:Odd by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Protip: In most places you would be charged as an accessory in that case. Unless you can prove they stole it. At the very least you could get charged with negligence.

    This is flat out bullshit. Criminally, It doesn't matter if the car was stolen or borrowed.

    This analogy is bad, because it's relatively simple to determine who the operator of the car is (spoofing cars is really hard), where it is not so easy to peer through the ether and see who using a PC, or even if that PC is the one you think it is.

  4. Re:Death Knell? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't worry, the release of Duke Nukem 4ever will be the death knell for the RIAA and the year of Linux on the desktop!

    And ponies. Can't forget the ponies.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!