Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Stays RIAA Subpoena Vs. Students
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The procedures used by the RIAA the past 5 years in suing 'John Does' without their knowing about it have never been subjected to scrutiny by an appeals court, since most of the 'John Does' never learn about the 'ex parte' proceeding until it's too late to do anything about it. That is about to change. In Arista Records v. Does 1-16, a case targeting students at the Albany Campus of the State University of New York, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has decided to put things on hold while it takes a careful look at what transpired in the lower court. The way it came to this is that a few 'John Does' filed a broad-based challenge to a number of the RIAA's procedures, citing the defendant's constitutional rights, the insufficiency of the complaint, the lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, improper misjoinder of the defendants, and the RIAA's illegal procurement of its 'evidence' through the use of an unlicensed investigator, MediaSentry. The lower court judges gave short shrift to 'John Doe #3,' but he promptly filed an appeal, and asked for a stay of the subpoena and lower court proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. The RIAA opposed the motion, arguing that John Doe's appeal had no chance of success. The Appeals Court disagreed and granted the motion, freezing the subpoena and putting the entire case on hold until the appeal is finally determined. As one commentator said, 'this news has been a long time coming, but is welcomed.'"
This is big. This will be the very first appellate scrutiny. By staying all lower court proceedings until the appeal is decided, the Court signalled that it's taking this very very seriously.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Is this a sign that the judicial system is finally going to start to treat the RIAA like the mobsters they mimic?
John Doe #3; please raise your hand so that I may buy you a [insert beverage of choice here].
Mass stupidity routed back to the corner, swears revenge and runs off into the sunset with 'Yackety Sax' music in background to return at a later court date.
RIAA: f you, john doe #3.
John Doe #3: f me, huh? Hey appeals court, f the RIAA!
Appeals Court: We concur, f the RIAA.
RIAA: aw, f.
404 not found
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
The problem with threatening people at random, is that eventually you make the mistake of threatening someone who has the resources to take you all the way to the supreme court. The RIAA seems to have a pattern of targeting those least able to defend themselves (college students, single moms, seniors) but it look like now they have a ready, willing, and able opponent who wont just roll over. Let's all collective summon up our best Nelson Muntz impressions: "Ha-ha!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Pigs have been seen flying over local pastures, and hell is recording record low temperatures.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
The procedures used by the RIAA the past 5 years in suing 'John Does' without their knowing about it have never been subjected to scrutiny by an appeals court, since most of the 'John Does' never learn about the 'ex parte' proceeding until it's too late to do anything about it.
Wait, I am missing something. In the US doesn't the prosecution have to have a defendent before they can start preceedings? They can investigate all they like but you can't prosecute without a defendent. What someone is going to knock on my door one day and say "BTW you have been found guilty of murder, your trial happened last month, your getting the chair"??
The RIAA opposed the motion, arguing that John Doe's appeal had no chance of success.
I enjoyed this one... "Your honor, don't grant the appeal, they have no chance of winning. It would be silly to even honor their request. BTW, if you do what we say they WILL have no chance of winning and that makes us right, so you need to do as we say because we are right and you would not want to be on the side of wrong, because we are right."
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Huh?
(a) The pirates deserve to be slammed for STEALING (Yes I said it, because that's what it is!)!
(b) The pirates ALSO deserve all the due process and constitutional protection that the US has to offer--and the RIAA assiduously tries to ignore! You can't slam the thieves until the thieves get a FULL and FAIR day in court.
The Pirates deserve to be hammered, but only after every last one of their constitutional rights is respected!
I am constantly hearing on /. that mediasentry does not have an investigators license. I have to say I don't understand the process that well, but I figured it would be illegal to operate without a license. Shouldn't the cops or fbi be shutting down the company? I am glad to final hear that case evidence will final be forming for the RIAA's process. It will make future attempts by the RIAA much harder if the case is thrown out.
What do 'short shrift' and 'misjoinder' mean, in english?
And before someone gets smart and says 'let me google that for you,' I already have.. it still doesn't make sense to me:
Misjoinder An incorrect union of parties or of causes of action in a procedure in criminal or civil court Shrift the act of being shriven Shriven shrive - To hear or receive a confession (of sins etc.); To prescribe penance or absolution; To confess, and receive absolutionA little help, lawyery or IANAL-y friends?
This is the first time an appeals court has examined whether or not having a court hearing without the presence of the defendant (ex parte preceding) is permissible given such little evidence, no real damages incurred by the plaintiff (insufficiency of complaint), whether or not the given court is even the right place to hear the complaint (lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants), whether or not lumping all of these defendants together as a collective group is legitimate (improper misjoinder of the defendants), and whether or not it's complete BS that the RIAA is using a private group to invade individual's privacy to obtain information (illegal procurement of evidence).
That last description may be a little biased.
With the appointments in the Justice Department going to former(~current) entertainment industry representatives(**AA), what kind of mayhem can they cause in a situation like this?
We've already heard from them once on this subject, but how can they intervene on this specific trial/appeal?
I just read the lower court judge's ruling in denying the motion to quash and I frankly don't see a problem with the judge's reasoning.
The first amendment response by the Does is stupid. P2P considered speech?
Insuficiency of the complaint? It seems to me it states clearly what/when.
Unlicensed investigator? It's a civil trial, "illegal evidence" applies only to criminal cases, and by government agents, not by civil parties. Am I missing something? It's great that the appeal court is willing to hear it however, but I fail to see how an entity claiming copyright infringement could go on to discover the identities of infringers without going through that motion... Anyone care to explain?
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
nsuficiency of the complaint? It seems to me it states clearly what/when.
How about "who?"
your appeal has no chance of success
make your time ...
HA HA HA HA
For great justice indeed.
In the Plaintiff's Motion to Quash, they state in footnote 1, "Defendants rely on the same arguments Mr. Beckerman has raised and lost in other cases." Strangely enough, they fail to cite the actual cases in which these arguments have been "raised and lost." Are there actual legal precedents in which Mr. Beckerman's arguments have been found lacking, or are the RIAA lawyers just blatantly lying?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
P2P users who distribute (upload) and copy (download) copyrighted material violate the copyright laws.
It is not clear that every copy made of copyrighted material violates copyright laws. For example, if I make a backup copy of a disk, store it on a network drive, and then transfer it back to my computer, have I violated copyright laws?
SUNY maintains logs that match IP addresses with their users' computer hardware.
SUNY maintains logs that match IP addresses to MAC layer addresses. It is well known that these MAC addresses can be spoofed on virtually all network adapters (Hint to infringers: override the default address assignment on your Ethernet or Wireless card, then switch it back when somebody accuses you.)
Plaintiffs' allegations meet the heightened scrutiny required for expedited discovery
I believe the criteria for expedited discovery is that irreparable damage is done to the plaintiffs if discovery is delayed. Plaintiff's own statements that millions of people are using P2P argues against this; one more or less out of millions could hardly make a difference in the economic damage done.
The Columbia court noted that discovery of infringer's identity from the ISP is appropriate when plaintiff could (1) identify the party with sufficient specificity to demonstrate that the defendant is a real person (2) identify all previous steps to locate the defendant and, (3) establish that plaintiff's suit could withstand a motion to dismiss. Even if this were the standard, Plaintiffs have easily satisfied it in this case.
Bullshit. On all three points.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Also, Doe3 is asking for lawyer costs due to the inappropriate nature of the initial court filing. I suppose this constitutes a counterclaim which means the appeal court has to look at it?
Can they just walk away at this point without fortfeiting the request for lawyer fees?
If material can be accessed on the Internet, it is free. Free to be used in any way the user desires.
This has been the way it has been since the beginning and it continues to be the way of the Internet. A few misguided people think they can impose their outmoded values on Internet users - only to be slapped down. The RIAA is going to lose because they cannot see how the endgame is going to play out. People will continue to take whatever they want because it is available through the Internet. States cannot pass laws controlling the Internet because there is always another State which will ignore, bypass or openly flount laws like this.
So this means that "piracy" and file-sharing will continue forever, can't be stopped, Attempting to persecute students for exercising their "Internet rights" is bound to fail eventually - because as just about everyone under 30 knows you can't stop the march of progress on the Internet. It is all out there for the taking, so we are going to take. And take, and take and take.
Can't be stopped.
By the way, only a few states require computer forensics be conducted by licensed investigators. The effects of laws like this are not good, but it seems like a sensible precaution. Unfortunately, what this does is create a credentialism system where nobody but a "licensed" person can perform certain work on computers. If investigators need licenses, how about people that are potentially exposed to secret information as consultants? Shouldn't they be licensed as well? How about all system administrators? So they can assist with law enforcement investigations of things like child porn and such, right?
Credentialism has other problems as well, in addition to just creeping into things. Today you can't legally teach in a classroom without a "teaching certificate", a type of license. Doesn't mean that you know anything other than being able to pass the certificate test - which is a 5th grade level exam in most states. Introducing this for anything in the area of IT is a generally bad idea.
LOL!!!
Well played, AC.
Okay Mr. Biden, don't you have a ribbon cutting or something to do. We know you're jealous you didn't get your own NSA hacked Blackberry!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
I suppose we should thank the woefully ignorant Magistrate Judge who bowed and scraped to every half-baked RIAA argument presented to him. If he's not already on the take from the RIAA for that performance, he should be. After all, it was only his incredibly dumb performance, validated by the trial judge who barely took the time for the decision to reach him, let alone actually read it, that have created the issues for this appeal.
That, and the fact that John Doe #3 is willing to fight this out. Perhaps the RIAA figured no college kid would actually take it this far.
I expect the RIAA to try to get out of this one and hope it will just go away. After all, sooner or later this had to happen so they must have a contingency plan - something more compelling than telling the Appeals Court that the Defendant has no chance of winning - to deal with this situation when it finally arrived.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It seems to me that you have a record of losing before exactly TWO judges - one Magistrate and one Real judge - out of the hundreds or thousands of them throughout this great country. That you keep having to face these same TWO rigid (need I say, dishonest?) judges who have managed to corral ALL of these cases in their district into their own courtroom because they have accepted the RIAA lies that all of these cases are related, and too complicated for other judges to understand. It is like all bank robbery cases in the district going to The Hanging Judge - or all murder cases being heard by The Bleeding Heart Liberal Left Judge. There is no chance to see a preponderance of legal opinion being shown to Mr. Beckerman when he continually has to face the same TWO judges every time. This is not justice, or fairness, or equality to these Defendants.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Improper joinder.
No valid reason for ex parte proceedings.
And apparently a good part of your mind.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Improper joinder. No valid reason for ex parte proceedings. And apparently a good part of your mind.
Thanks for questioning my sanity, I do that frequently too. Though that leads me to wonder how one can be objective about one's own sanity... Anyway ;-)
My questions are not about the improper joinder, I agree with that.
OTHER arguments.
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
And oh yes, their whole rational for expedited discovery is complete B.S. They are trying to get the identifying information before anyone can rally to stop them.
And don't forget that this entire case is a sham proceeding to start with. They have no intention of seeking actual relief for their alleged damages at trial. This case will be dismissed - because it absolutely cannot be won - the moment they've misused the court system to get private information not available to them otherwise. It's a loophole in the court system that needs to be closed now that people are learning the true need of privacy from well-funded, unscrupulous, enemies.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It seems to me that you have a record of losing before exactly TWO judges - one Magistrate and one Real judge
I haven't lost any "cases". I said I lost some "motions". I lost 3 motions on the John Doe procedural issues. In the named defendant cases, I made 4 dismissal motions, each based on 2 different topics: (a) the making available issue and (b) the specificity issue as to downloading & distributing. Here is the track record:
-Elektra v. Santangelo: judge denied motion as to (b), didn't say how she was ruling as to (a);
-Maverick v. Goldshteyn: judge denied (b), deferred (a) until after discovery on the ground that he did not understand the technology;
-Electra v. Barker: judge granted motion as to (a) and denied it as to (b);
-Warner v. Cassin: motion never decided because RIAA withdrew the case before it could be decided. There were 7 different judges, no magistrates.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Er, what do you think Sony's "core business" is? Hint: it's not TV sets.
Er, what do you think Sony's "core business" is? Hint: it's not TV sets.
I'd bet Sony makes more money off of music and movies in America than they do from hardware. Like everything else, most low-to-mid grade electronics Sony sells now is made outside of Japan in cheaper Asian factories. I can't imagine the profit margin from things like headphones and Walkmans are all that great compared to the money they're bringing in from record labels and Columbia Pictures.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I don't want to litigate the case online, but there is a lot of misunderstanding here of what this case is about and what will happen from here. Essentially, I asked the Court to stay the subpoena, because the issue is Doe 3's right to remain anonymous, and if Doe 3's identity is disclosed, it would obviously become impossible to get a ruling about that right...cat out of bag, and all that...So by granting the stay, the Court agreed at least that the issues are arguable, and that the subpoena should be on hold while they consider them. And of course Ray is right, that this case is a big deal, since no appellate court has dealt with the RIAA's basic legal strategy in these cases, and now they will be able to take a close look at all of it. The next step is filing briefs saying why I think the District Court judge was wrong, and the plaintiffs filing one saying why he was right. The appeal will be argued sometime in August, I think, and Ray will certainly post everything on his blog as it happens. I hope people can make it to the beautiful courtroom when it happens. And thanks to Ray for keeping these issues alive. I just sort of quietly litigate them in the courthouse, and don't really like to blow my own horn... Richard A. Altman
Just because this is Slashdot, doesn't mean that you have to behave like just another moron, Ray.
Even if the OP was 100% wrong, the fact that it was presented reasonably deserved more than you gave. Your response just made you look unprofessional, not to mention slightly dumb or at least insensitive to queries. A short explanation was in order, not a berating and a dismissal.
Try harder. You're held to a higher standard than most here.
All I want to say is: God bless you... and take those devils to hell!
All I want to say is: God bless you... and take those devils to hell!
Amen.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Hey Ray, Ryan from eZee.se here, forgot to thank you as well for posting this on SD. Have a good weekend! Cheers!
Again we see how inane the RIAA has become, and how "Often Wrong" their assertions in objection often are. Seems to me that the Federal court system has properly gotten clued on the lack of good juris prudence the RIAA often seems to practice. I have to wonder when ICANN's vaunted IPC Constituency will be disbanded of which the RIAA is a prominant member. Frankly the RIAA is making the IPC look bad if not preditory. In the future, we all should be hopful that the DOJ doesn't follow suit especially sense 6 of the new Intelectual Property Divisions were hired away from law firms that represented landmark legal cases for the RIAA, of which several were badly lost. As such this does not engender to me a very good win/loss track record, nor demonstrating the best interests of the public as a whole. FWIW it would be a very good idea for the RIAA to rethink it's legal stratagy as it would for the DOJ's new IP divisions additions, and for ICANN's IPC to rethink it's membership. Regards, CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Is there any believer in copyright here who can argue the case in favor? The GP obviously can't. His arguments weren't strong, they were the usual massively overreaching weakling "copying = theft" trash that most Slashdot readers can refute in 2 seconds. That argument, and the confusion of the right to copy with the right not to be plagiarized, conflation of public knowledge (whistle a song you heard on the radio) with private (give out your credit card #), and the assertion that we should embrace copyright because the GPL wouldn't work without it, and of course the "starving artists" and sermonizing over how are they to earn a living, seems to be the best that defenders of copyright can muster.
Could it be we are not hearing good arguments in favor of copyright because there aren't any?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Just wanted to report that the excellent p2pnet.net site, which is the source of the last link in the story, is back online! Welcome, Jon, glad you've put the server problem behind you! All the best.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful