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.'"

Comments

Isn't RIAA's request reasonable?

[Saib0t]

IANAL, etc. and I'm no fan of the MAFIAA at all... However...

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?