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.'"
Is it possible for the RIAA to drop the case in order to stop these proceedings? I know that's a tactic they've used in the past when things didn't go their way. Hopefully, they won't be able to just say "oops, our bad" and stop any investigation into their tactics.
Yes it is possible for it to try that gambit. But it is also possible for the Court to retain jurisdiction over it.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If the appellate court forces the RIAA to use the ordinary subpoena process instead of 'ex-parte' with joinder then will that not substantially alter the cost equation for the RIAA?
Yes, if they had been following the law, it would have cost them more. In fact, if they had been following the law, they wouldn't have even been able to file the lawsuits. But it is not about costing them money, or preventing them from bringing lawsuits to enforce their copyrights. The important thing is that the law be followed, and not bent to suit the whims of large corporations just because they can afford to hire a large number of unscrupulous lawyers.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
1. "Prosecution" is a criminal term; these are civil cases, not criminal cases.
2. Under American law you are required to give notice, and an opportunity to be heard, PRIOR to the court granting your motion. This has not occurred in the RIAA cases. It has been an ongoing flagrant violation of American law.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
By "short shrift" I meant the Magistrate Judge and the District Judge paid scant attention, and just blew it off without paying careful consideration to the law or to the paucity of evidence.
"Misjoinder" is a legal term. In this case what it refers to is the fact that the RIAA sued 16 "John Does" in a single case, even though the federal rules clearly required them to bring 16 separate cases, and even though in 2004 they were ordered by two federal judges to cease and desist from that practice.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Will there be a full appeal with oral arguments?
Yes!!!
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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?
There are some motions we have made which we have lost in the lower courts, however we prevailed on the portion of our motions which was directed to the "making available" theory, and most other lawyers have prevailed on the misjoinder issue.
In the appeals court, all of that is basically academic. The appeals court is here to give the district courts direction, not the other way around.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Do you know if the 2nd Circuit has mp3s available of oral arguments? My quick google search didn't find any. I know other circuits have them available.
Not to my knowledge. You're just going to have come on down to the courthouse to see Mr. Altman in action.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
More than one court has already noted this. In 2004 the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin, TX) sua sponte (meaning without being asked to do so by either party) dismissed four separate cases totaling 254 defendants (Fonovisa vs Does 1-41, Atlantic vs Does 1-151, Elektra vs Does 1-11, UMG vs Does 1-51) and told the RIAA to refile against each defendant individually.
It appears that they RIAA has not followed that order in other cases since 2004. How much weight would this order have at the to Appeals court in this case? Some, little, jurisdiction issues? NYCL?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
More than one court has already noted this. In 2004 the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin, TX) sua sponte (meaning without being asked to do so by either party) dismissed four separate cases totaling 254 defendants (Fonovisa vs Does 1-41, Atlantic vs Does 1-151, Elektra vs Does 1-11, UMG vs Does 1-51) and told the RIAA to refile against each defendant individually.
Moreover there are practical reasons supporting severing the claims against the defendants. The filing fees for the recent four cases totaled $600, whereas filing fees for 254 separate cases would have been $38,100. . .Because these four suits are in actuality 254 separate lawsuits, the Court sua sponte will dismiss without prejudice all but the first defendant in each case. . .In addition, Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience.
It appears that they RIAA has not followed that order in other cases since 2004. How much weight would this order have at the to Appeals court in this case? Some, little, jurisdiction issues? NYCL?
Speaking from the point of view of an appellate court, it would tip us off that the plaintiffs' lawyers have been cavalier about following the law. And we might direct the lower court to order the RIAA to show cause why it was not in contempt of that order.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
What verdicts? I don't recall the RIAA ever winning a single case. Well, one, but that verdict has already been set aside by the judge.
They've never won a contested case.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful