Appeals Court Stays RIAA Subpoena

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has stepped in and issued a temporary stay of the RIAA's subpoena for the identity of a student at the State University of New York in Albany. The student, 'John Doe #3,' had filed an appeal and motion for stay pending appeal, arguing that the appeal 'raises significant issues, some of first impression' (PDF), such as the standards for the use of ex parte procedures for expedited discovery, the scope of the First Amendment right of anonymity over the internet, the scope of the distribution right in copyright law, and the pleading requirements for infringement of such right."

Comments

Slashdot, then and now

[bonch]

Slashdot in 2000:

"Suing Napster is stupid! The RIAA should be going after individual copyright infringers. If they just did that, there wouldn't be a problem."

Slashdot in 2009:

"Suing individual copyright infringers is evil! The RIAA should do nothing while everybody pirates everything under the sun. That way, I can keep getting shit for free without feeling guilty."

Re:Slashdot, then and now

[TheRealMindChild]

No one is contesting that the RIAA should not be going after the copyright infringers. It is how they are going about it. They are gaming the legal system, going after innocent people knowing that almost NO ONE has the means to fight back. It is pretty much an extortion free-for-all.

Re:Slashdot, then and now

[Shagg]

Slashdot in 2009:

"Suing individual copyright infringers is evil!..."

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to what "Slashdot in 2009" has been saying.

Re:Slashdot, then and now

[Tenebrousedge]

how about: Suing Napster was stupid, they should have bought it.

The problem is that it is technically infeasible to stop filesharing without at the very least being massively invasive of privacy. Compounding the problem is that our current laws don't really take into account the fact that we have this massive high-speed data network built for the express purpose of moving files around.

So we're kind of screwed. On the one hand, our laws are draconian and out of date, and the organization supposedly protecting the rights of artists seems to act more like an organized crime syndicate. On the other hand, artists deserve to be compensated fairly, and we want to encourage respect for the law, lest we end up like China, where (I hear) everything is illegal, but only enforced arbitrarily.

This is a massive cultural shift. The RIAA has failed to catch the rising edge with Napster, and then with iTunes. Their position is absolutely untenable, and they're only making it worse with every passing day. I'd almost feel sorry for them if they had not had so many opportunities to understand what is going on.

It's a very complex issue, and many people are divided about it, but one thing is clear. If slashdot were as simple and morally bankrupt as you describe, I wouldn't be here. Actually, that sounds a lot like Digg...

Re:This could be big

[morgan_greywolf]

It seems to me that courts have a history of not ruling on issues that they feel might not be substantive to the case at hand. For instance, his privacy rights as relating to the First Amendment or the procedural problems with ex parte requests themselves might cause the 2nd Court to ignore the scope of copyright as insubstantial to the case at hand.

Innaccurate concept of libraries

[bugi]

The difference is that libraries lend a limited number of copies.

Copyright is an industrial era concept that doesn't work terribly well in the information age where information scarcity no longer applies. Copyright was a wonderful innovation in its day, but today we need another way to encourage people to publish their works.

Anybody got any ideas?