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.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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? Will they be forced to concentrate on fewer defendants and spend more effort going after them? Will they finally give up if they can only go after a limited number at a time who, even if convicted, cannot pay $250,000+ damages anyway? One cannot squeeze blood from turnips after all and if the primary goal of the RIAA is to file lots of cases spamigation style, then won't their primary purpose, which is to frighten large numbers of ordinary citizens on the cheap, be thwarted? I think that if the appellate court outcome renders their current strategy uneconomical then the RIAA will try to use their newfound clout with the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress to push through some very onerous new legislation and encourage the government, and therefore the tax payers, to shoulder the massively increased costs per defendant by having the Justice Department do their dirty work for them. I'm afraid that we're not out of the woods yet.
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.
What does that mean for past cases that were not settled out of court? Do they get reheard? Do their verdicts get overturned?
It seems to me that if a court is found to have not followed the letter of the law, some action regarding those involved should be taken. It could be a slap on the wrist for the Judge presiding the case, perhaps the lawyers on either side.