RIAA Quashed 76
FsG writes "According to an Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release, a Massachusetts district court has ordered that the RIAA subpoenas sent to MIT and Boston College be rejected. This ruling came in response to an RIAA request, filed earlier today, asking that MIT and Boston College be ordered to comply with subpoenas sent to them a month ago. 'We urge other colleges and Internet service providers to take similar steps to protect their users' privacy,' said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn." Following up on this story. Forcing the RIAA to have their subpoenas issued from the local court rather than Washington a) is legally correct and b) makes it harder (more expensive) for them to issue mass quantities.
NOT a privacy victory (Score:5, Insightful)
fp?
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:2)
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:2)
file subpoenas where it alleges that copyright infringement occurs
That's really going to hurt at the outset, even more if they lose many cases. Plus look at all the money wasted on the first batch. No supoena for you! Back of the line!
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:2)
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:2)
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, yes, because you're gonna get every one of the hundred million teeny boppers who buy RIAA-supported labels to boycott.
RIAA's never gonna get hurt by a boycott.
Our purchases are a privilege they must earn, not a debt we owe!
You may not owe them purchases, but they don't owe you free music if you choose not to purchase. If you don't want to pay for music, fine - but don't claim that gives you a right to get it for free.
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:3, Insightful)
If people shift to counterfeit disc vendors (which I've not seen a single one of in my life in this country), that doesn't make it right or legal. Not only that, but the increase would paint one huge bullseye on those vendors, just like Napster painted one o
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:4, Informative)
I don't endorse counterfeit discs, but a kid who has five dollars to spend on music, not 20 is going to buy them, won't give a rat's ass whether it is legal, and won't percieve himself as doing anything wrong. The major labels have a dying business model, just as the horse and buggy industry did once the automobile was invented. The labels must accept the digital revolution, or their place in the dustbin of history.
Aw bullcrap! (Score:1)
That's a silly comparison.
Listening to the radio is a passive activity. Online file trading (copying) isn't. Yes the music played on the radio is free, but it's just a promotion/teaser. With radio, you can't listen to a particular song ANY TIME YOU WANT TO. They want you hear the song, like it, and then go BUY the CD!
NOT free (Score:2)
Only because somebody else is paying for the music you listen, in hopes of getting you to listen to their advertisments also.
And everybody pays for that music inderectly (in prices of the advertised products). So it's far from free.
Online, it's harder to get people to pay for advertisements (and then of course there are all the too-easy-to-pirate issues etc). And indeed most of us just hate online advertising! The price to pay for this is that we must then pay f
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:2, Insightful)
This way there will be some courts (like this one) that will reject their subpoenas. It could snowball against them this way.
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:5, Insightful)
1) the RIAA can't choose it's favorite legal district anymore. They can't buy influence in one state and then apply that to the entire country.
2) the RIAA can't inconvenience its victims (as much) - forcing the victims to travel across the country is an unfair hardship when _proper_ procedure is to sue in the district in which the alleged violation was committed.
2b) the now-lessened hardship of fighting the RIAA means the RIAA is less able to use the threat of a lawsuit to extort a settlement out of its accused.
3) the effort the RIAA is now required to exert to sue is now more equal to the effort the accused must exert to defend.
The RIAA being allowed to cheaply sue anyone in the place of their choosing was an asymmetrical attack, an unjust abuse of the spirit of our legal system. It allowed them to arbitrarily punish at will.
The article didn't mention the RIAA's ability to issue subpoenas without a judge's consent, but I hope that's been challenged too, as it is also an abuse of the system.
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:4, Insightful)
1) the RIAA can't choose it's favorite legal district anymore. They can't buy influence in one state and then apply that to the entire country.
I'm not convinced that it won't continue to use its improper practices, and just hope that most people are too ignorant of the law to dispute it. That seems to be the most common play for this sort.
Which means that maybe this article should have been on the front page.
Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:1)
Spin? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not arguing that the DMCA is a Good or Bad Thing, but it is law and it allows copyright holders to issue subpoenas without going through a court. Verizon was the test case and the RIAA won, hence there's a precedent ruling that their behaviour is "legally correct".
Re:Spin? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not arguing that the DMCA is a Good or Bad Thing, but it is law and it allows copyright holders to issue subpoenas without going through a court. Verizon was the test case and the RIAA won, hence there's a precedent ruling that their behaviour is "legally correct".
The way I understand it, the DMCA allows copyright holders to issue subpoenas without going through a judge. They still have to go through a court.
This just clarified which court they had to go through.
Re:Spin? (Score:2)
Yeah, I heard they print them out with Microsoft Subpoena 2003, DRM edition, with the DMCA .NET plugin.
Don't ya just hate em? (Score:1)
These industries are collectively nothing more than robber barrons of yore. What they need to do is pay actors a living wage, and that's it. Drop the profits and lower ticket prices. Drop the CD prices.
John Stuart
Re:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:2, Interesting)
What's wrong with capitalism? If you don't like the price of popcorn, don't buy it. If you can't afford the cost of a CD, spend your money someplace else. Why shouldn't actor's be paid $25 million a money if they can get it?
-BrentWhat's wrong with capitalism, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, it is not a magic bullet. It has weaknesses. So we've come up with laws to cover most of them: fraud, theft, intellectual property, collusion, illegal monopolies. All these things are products of our capitalist economy.
In my humble opinion, the RIAA and MPAA seem to have discovered some loophole between 'collusion' and 'illegal monopoly' by alternately shifting blame between the member companies and the associations themselves.
Capitalism is a system, and like any system can be abused. Whenever we stop one type of abuse, someone will discover another. This is what 'trade group associations' are doing, in my opinion. Illegal monopolies and collusion are both harmful to the free market, so there are laws against both. I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest that the MPAA and RIAA's obscene lobbying power is also detrimental to the free market.
Unfortunately, they are quite capable of using their obscene lobbying power to protect themselves from such accusations (at least at a governmental level). And it'll take a hell of a lot more than a bunch of people pissing and moaning on Slashdot to get anything to happen about it. As usual, the EFF [eff.org] has the right idea, but they don't have even a tiny fraction of the power of the RIAA, MPAA, or any other major lobbying group (Liquor, Tobacco, Auto manufacturers, etc). Money is power in a capitalist country.
Just my random thoughts. And yes, I am a bleeding heart liberal, thanks.
Re:What's wrong with capitalism, eh? (Score:1, Insightful)
The key to a successful free market is competition. Copyright outlaws competition. It is like prohibiting me from taking the seed from an apple and growing
Re:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:2)
Capitalism is FREE MARKET. That means that I should have the choice of going to a movie theater where the popcorn costs less. Is there one? No.
Collusion, monopoly, irresposible greed (ala enron) and others come to my mind when you ask "what is wrong with capitalism". And this even without touching the issue of "capitalism is the best system"...
Re:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's not what capitalism means. Capitalism means, for one thing, that the moview theater can't take $1 from 5 people who don't get popcorn to give to you for $1 intead of $5.
It also doesn't mean that you get to pay what you want for something. It means that the seller and the buyer meet at a point where a transaction takes place. So if that point is $5 f
Re:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:1)
Capitalism is not the lack of communism, as you seem to infer here, according to dictionary.com it's "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
And also, according to investorwords.com, capitalism is where "free market forces determine the prices of goods
Re:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:1)
Re:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:1)
Communism is state-run everything, whereas socialism advocates shared production (ie. NOT state run)
The pollution in ex-communist countries is due mainly to the state's greed under a dictator, and also Western countries' refusal to share technology that would help the situation. A socialist system wouldn't have this problem because workers would be working for the community, and not for profit.
Of course, since we have greed culturally ingrained it would take a lot to
Re:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:2)
You are trying to tell me that about 4oz of corn, the butter (imitation with the super special artery clogger) and the 5c worth of electricity (to pop it) somehow adds up to be more than 25c? Are you sane?
If the popcorn is $5 at all of the places, it means only either collusion or monopoly. Take your pick...
Of course this woul
Re:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:2)
Re:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:2)
If someone is willing to pay $5 for a bucket of popcorn, it is going to be $5 everywhere because every movie theater is going to want to make the most profit they can.
-BrentRe:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:2)
Don't tell me that $5 is some kind of magic number and people would not be buying %5.50 or $6 popcorn in other theaters...
Re:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:1)
By that same token, I've noticed some theaters charge 5.50 for tickets, and some up to 9.50... yet the ones with the higher ticket prices also charge the most for popcorn.
Re:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:1)
Re:Don't ya just hate em? (Score:2, Informative)
First, you're confusing capitalism (a system based on control of capital resources by a minority of government-backed "owners") with the free market (a method of determining what good and services should be provided).
Second, a system of state-created monopolies on making copies isn't a free market. Especially when that system goes far beyond it's Con
Where that $5 popcorn really goes. (Score:1)
So how do they stay in business? Simple, that $5 bucket of popcorn and a long running movie. All o
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally (Score:1)
Oh no ... (Score:2)
No no, you must have confused RIAA with SCO.
zDeceptive headline (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
I was walking past his cube when this happened. He's not in danger of switching careers any time soon.
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
I really don't think I would have wanted to see that dance, come to think of it....
Not a local Judge (Score:5, Informative)
If his ruling holds, the RIAA would have to act thru the hundred odd US District courts, not quite the same burden as applying in every local court.
Federal court? (Score:3, Insightful)
This actually could be a bad thing... (Score:1)
if it comes from washington, and you claim your citizenship (IE citizen of the united states of america not US Citizen) then washington cant do a damn thing to you.
Forum Shopping / "Federal Question" Jursidiction (Score:1)
I don't follow your argument at all, but I'll try and address the issue I think you're talking about...
Federal courts exist under the jurisdiction granted them
tax scams aren't real (Score:2)
The laws about where the federal government has jurisdiction, vs. state governments, are fairly clear. And despite whatever crackpot interpretation people can come up with, if you can't make it work in court (which no-one has), it's meaningless, and could actually be harmful to the individual trying to us
Re:tax scams aren't real (Score:1)
Read very closly, and ask a lawyer or paralegal if you feel like it.
If you claim that you are a "citizen of the united states of america" that takes you SO Far out of federal law its not funny. If you claim you are a
"U.S. Citizen" Then you are telling the government you are one of theirs, a citizen of the government directly. (DC, Guam, virigin islands, america samoa)
I have a reply back from Barbara B. Kennelly, member of congress, that states there IS a difference between the 2 cit
Re:tax scams aren't real (Score:2)
Here's an Idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here's an Idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
You want to hurt the RIAA? You want to "turn it around" on them? Me too. Here's an idea: download iRATE Radio (it's on sourceforge. I'm not going to link it for you). Use the program to build a collection of free and legal mp3s. Go through the trouble of appending words like " - similar to artist XYZ" to the end of the mp3 filenames. Then share this stuff through kazaa. That way, you'll turn a few clueless people on to indie bands.
oh, and don
Yeah!! (Score:1)
The legal details, for those interested (Score:5, Informative)
Short and to the point. A single sentence:
The court hereby orders that: 1. Because Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2) and (b)(2) do not permit a subpoena for production issued in Washington, D.C., to be validly served in Massachusetts, Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order [#1] is ALLOWED.
So I went and located Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2) and (b)(2). [cornell.edu]
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 45. Subpoena
(a) Form; Issuance.
(2) A subpoena commanding attendance at a trial or hearing shall issue from the court for the district in which the hearing or trial is to be held. A subpoena for attendance at a deposition shall issue from the court for the district designated by the notice of deposition as the district in which the deposition is to be taken. If separate from a subpoena commanding the attendance of a person, a subpoena for production or inspection shall issue from the court for the district in which the production or inspection is to be made.
(b) Service.
(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (ii) of subparagraph (c)(3)(A) of this rule, a subpoena may be served at any place within the district of the court by which it is issued, or at any place without the district that is within 100 miles of the place of the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection specified in the subpoena or at any place within the state where a state statute or rule of court permits service of a subpoena issued by a state court of general jurisdiction sitting in the place of the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection specified in the subpoena. When a statute of the United States provides therefor, the court upon proper application and cause shown may authorize the service of a subpoena at any other place. A subpoena directed to a witness in a foreign country who is a national or resident of the United States shall issue under the circumstances and in the manner and be served as provided in Title 28, U.S.C. 1783.
45(a)(2) Says that the subpoenas should never have been issued. The Washington D.C. court screwed up in signing them.
45(b)(2) Says that even if the they were valid they cann't be legally served. As far as the law is concerned they may as well be printed in invisible ink. Legally you haven't seen it and don't have to comply.
That is federal law governing the subpoena process. It applies to ALL of the RIAA's subpoenas. That means that every single one of the RIAA's subpoenas are INVALID unless they happen to be directed at an ISP in the Washington D.C. area.
-
Re:The legal details, for those interested (Score:1)
Domain Name: AOL.COM
Registrant:
America Online, Inc.
22000 AOL Way
Dulles, VA 20166
US
Created on..............: Jun 22 1995 12:00AM
Expires on..............: Nov 23 2003 7:02AM
Record Last Updated on..: Aug 1 2003 1:14PM
Registrar...............: America Online, Inc.
http://whois.registrar.aol.com/whois/
Administrative, Technical Contact:
AOL Domain Administration (America Online, Inc.)
22000 AOL Way
Dulles
Re:The legal details, for those interested (Score:2)
The RIAA appears to be actively NOT touching AOL.
I'm not even going to try to speculate on the reason for that, but I have no doubt there's quite a story behind it.
-
Re:The legal details, for those interested (Score:1)
Warner Brothers Records is a member of the RIAA, and owned by AOL Time Warner. We can't be attacking our own customers, now can we?
Re:The legal details, for those interested (Score:1)
Then why isn't Universal Music Group, no connection to Time Warner except through MPAA and RIAA, attacking America Online?
Opinions versus reactions (Score:3, Insightful)
It's interesting to see how many people vehemently oppose the RIAA; of course, as a sane individual, I'm one of them.
At the same time, I'm not surprised that a greater amount of reaction hasn't been taken against the RIAA's abuses of the United States' legal system and its obvious government manipulation through corporate power.
Historically, humans are much more likely to take action when they oppose something that legally allows others to do something they don't like, as compared to when they support something (human rights, for example) being challenged or when they are merely indirectly affected by it. This is how ultraconservative legislation (for example) is often passed, when a minority supports it rather than the majority: Most individuals against the legislation quietly oppose the issue, without taking action. A very small minority will work intensely and consistently to get its way, and they usually succeed. This is compared to the opposition, which takes action in small amounts that aren't usually consistent (like opposition that fizzles out after a large protest), and the opposition tends to be less "fire-breathing" as the other side.
Good examples of this are Minnesota's state legislature revoking domestic partner benefits for state employees due to a budget crisis and the influence of fundamentalists, and perhaps (please don't flame) the questionable recent war in the Middle East. (Disregarding whatever figures CNN or FoxNews may spout, I happen to be among those who doubt the majority in the United States actually supported the war. Ever.)
(You know, the one for oil? Oops... I mean, the one to hoist an unfriendly regime? Oops... I mean, the war to free innocent people from corruption, torture, and terror by murdering them and continuing to cause instability and terror?)
Back on track... the lack of reaction taken against the RIAA is disappointing but not odd, especially with the obvious issue that filesharing copyrighted material is illegal. But this isn't about copyright infringement, it's about the RIAA exploiting its resources while people just kind of let it slide by and wait to see what happens. Great thanks to the EFF for doing something constructive about it.
It seems that, for the most part, the only other people speaking out and taking some action (however small) are the people who've been sued. That is not to forget the generous people who have donated to pay the enormous charges against RIAA victims.
Finally, I must confess that I personally have taken no real action to fight the RIAA, though I should.
Super offtopic: reason was not oil (Score:2, Interesting)
The US is dependent on currency reserves. Other countries' currency reserves, to be precise. Most of the national deficit is financed by the US selling dollars. Dollars that go into other currency reserves, as the dollar is considered the most credible (and economically stable) currency in the world
music cd rentals? (Score:1, Insightful)
17 USC 109 (Score:4, Interesting)
We should be able to rent the latest cd's from video stores and anything ancient, out of print or 10 years or older should be available in the public library.
In 1984, the U.S. Congress banned the "rental, lease, or lending" of phonorecords without the express consent of both the recording artists' record labels and the songwriters' music publishers. Find the details in 17 USC 109(b) [cornell.edu].
Re:music cd rentals? (Score:1)