RIAA Subpoena Request Denied

By TChris, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 06:08:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

For some time now, the RIAA has been obtaining subpoenas from federal courts that compel colleges and universities to disclose the identities of students associated with IP's that RIAA believes were used to download music. Having identified the students, the RIAA threatens litigation unless the students fork over a few thousand dollars. This heavy-handed approach to copyright enforcement hasn't inhibited illegal downloading, but it's created a nice cash machine for the RIAA and its lawyers.

A U.S. District Judge in Virginia tossed a judicial wrench into the machine on Thursday when he refused the RIAA's ex parte request for a subpoena. Judge Kelley's tightly-reasoned decision concludes that no law authorizes a court to order the disclosure. Do you suppose RIAA will cite his decision in its future ex parte requests for subpoenas?

< What Al Qaida Wants | Medical MJ Revote May Be Granted in Berkeley >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

RIAA Subpoena Request Denied | 8 comments (8 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Music is theft (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:54:10 AM EST

As someone who occasionally gets a royalty check for the music that once sprang from my head, let me just say that music is theft. That's the modus operandi of Homo Sapiens. If Neandertals had been better cultural thieves maybe they'd be running things now.

The music business is theft stacked upon theft stacked upon theft stacked upon theft.

If one looks at the music business from back in Stephen Foster's time, when the money was in sheet music that Aunt Polly played on the piano, onward through time, it has always been the same: restricting the distribution of music (and the joy that music brings) for profit.

Corporate interests may have thought they'd improved their product when it crossed into the digital realm, but they actually guaranteed that piracy would eat into their profits. Like any other business the labor that makes the product gets damned little of the profit. Just recently a recording group made the top seller in Britain through online sales without benefit of a tape, record or CD. Or recording contract with a music company. Hooray for them.

The RIAA, who use the excuse of protecting artists' interests when they are merely protecting corporations' bottom line, can rot in hell.

: Exactly (none / 0) (#8)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 11:37:43 AM EST

The RIAA does not represent musicians. They exploit musicians save for the two or three that are too fat to notice because they are all gorging on crazy profits.
Most other artists have to sue the corporations to get a fair deal or get out of a contract that effectively keeps the artists music out of production.
Most of us played music before recording was possible. Now most of us are convinced that we can not produce our own musical pleasure so we have to consume via recordings.
Sad.

I had a case (none / 0) (#1)
by roger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:40:29 PM EST

with those RIAA clowns. I demanded to know exactly what songs were copywrited and to see the actual copywrites of each song.

That was the end of it, they have no clue, but they will come up with large alleged dollar amounts of damages

Nice move, roger. (none / 0) (#2)
by Edger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:52:43 PM EST

So their whole act is a bluff?

As far as TChris question:

Judge Kelley's tightly-reasoned decision concludes that no law authorizes a court to order the disclosure. Do you suppose RIAA will cite his decision in its future ex parte requests for subpoenas?

I hope the student unions will help spread the word.


In my case (none / 0) (#4)
by roger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 09:16:17 PM EST

it appeared to be a bluff. They did want $80k though


: Wow. (none / 0) (#5)
by Edger on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 09:18:17 PM EST

What can I say? I know people that will make them disappear for a lot less than that. ;-)

My visit from the RIAA (none / 0) (#3)
by chemoelectric on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 09:01:19 PM EST

The RIAA came to me one day and said that if I paid them thousands of dollars then they could ensure that my house and car wouldn't get trashed and nothing horrible would happen to my family.

Given RIAA's clout in Congress (none / 0) (#6)
by Ben Masel on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:44:56 AM EST

they'll go for a statutory fix. Faster than appeals,and less uncertain.Presidential signing by Sept. 15th.