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.'"

28 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. This is big by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:This is big by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    2. Re:This is big by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    3. Re:This is big by CodeBuster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:This is big by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    5. Re:This is big by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think we'll ever be out of the woods.

      If the Second Circuit rules as I believe it will, this will mark the end of these abusive litigations by the RIAA.

      After this, the RIAA will have to go to court only with proper, scientifically verifiable, legally obtained evidence showing that the person they're suing actually committed copyright infringement, and will have to have proper legal theories and pleadings.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    6. Re:This is big by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Will there be a full appeal with oral arguments?

      Yes!!!

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    7. Re:This is big by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    8. Re:This is big by Bakkster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Awesome. 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.

      No, but you can torrent them. Just be careful that the CSJA (Court System Judges of America) doesn't sue you for copyright infringement. I hear they've got a good legal team...

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    9. Re:This is big by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:This is big by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    11. Re:This is big by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the RIAA have a nearly unlimited amount of money to throw at this issue.

      Actually, they don't. These are not large companies in the scheme of things (unless you believe that Sony would throw it's core business over the side to protect its media properties), and the RIAA likely only has "millions" to work with. Grassroots opposition and donations from Slashdotters and others who know enough to care can make a real difference here.

      The courts aren't vulnerable to being bought the way that politicians are, so it's not a simple matter of whoever writes the biggest check wins - the opposition to the RIAA just needs enough money to stay in the game, not to outspend the RIAA.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. It was only a matter of time by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. Re:John Doe #3. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

    John Doe #3; please raise your hand so that I may buy you a [insert beverage of choice here].

    Sorry for the tyopes, I'm posting this from my balckbrery.

    I tried to insert a beer tehre, but the olny thing taht hapepned is i got beer all ovre my laptpo.

    Perhpas it would have bene better to use $BEVERAGE insteda fo giving bad instrutcions?

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  4. Re:It's about time by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

    is finally going to start to treat the RIAA like the mobsters they mimic?

    I really wish we could stop comparing the RIAA to the Mafia. It's an insult to the hard working men like Tony Soprano that strive to provide needed services like gambling, loan-sharking and prostitution to equate them with an organization that does nothing but sue college students and old people ;)

    On a more serious note, it's still a stupid comparison. If you wind up on Tony Soprano's bad side you are going to get beaten up or in the worst case scenario murdered. The worst case scenario from a RIAA lawsuit is that you wind up filing bankruptcy. Bankruptcy != murder, IMHO.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  5. Re:It's about time by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this a sign that the judicial system is finally going to start to treat the RIAA like the mobsters they mimic?

    That I don't know. But it certainly is a sign that the Second Circuit judges consider the issues raised by John Doe #3 in the lower court to be serious and important.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  6. NO CHANCE!?!?! by furby076 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:NO CHANCE!?!?! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    2. Re:NO CHANCE!?!?! by ausekilis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:NO CHANCE!?!?! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
  7. Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:John Doe #3. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    >>Sorry for the tyopes, I'm posting this from my balckbrery.

    Obama, don't you have country to run or something?

  9. Re:Let me be the first to ask... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  10. Re:Give those Pirates What they Deserve! by Tgeigs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (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!

    Assuming we're still talking about digital piracy here, it is NOT stealing, it is infringing. The two have separate legal meanings that have to do with a scarce good being taken away from another person/entity. Copying music does not take that original away, ergo it cannot be stealing, it is infringing.

  11. Re:It's about time by dwandy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The worst case scenario from a RIAA lawsuit is that you wind up filing bankruptcy. Bankruptcy != murder, IMHO.

    I disagree ... lawsuits are the modern equivalent of physical violence, and taking all of someone's assets is the modern murder. Just because we now have a system that allows pillaging and plundering without bloodshed doesn't decrease the devastation that this causes to people and their families.

    Lastly, people who lose it all often end it all, completing the 'murder'.

    --
    If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
  12. The RIAA Lawyer continued, stating by pavon · · Score: 4, Funny

    your appeal has no chance of success

    make your time
    HA HA HA HA ...


    For great justice indeed.

  13. Re:Isn't RIAA's request reasonable? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm no fan of the MAFIAA at all... However...

    Troll alert.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  14. Re:Plaintiff's footnote by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    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