RIAA ‘ID Boston students’ subpoena quashed
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- As first reported by p2pnet, the motion to quash the RIAA’s subpoena seeking identities of Boston University students has been granted, at least for the moment.
In a 52-page opinion (pdf) in which the Court balanced First Amendment privacy rights, and the record companies’ rights, the Judge concluded that she could not decide whether or not to quash until she had seen the college’s “Terms of Service Agreement” for internet service, so she could decide what “expectation of privacy” the students had.
So she quashed the subpoena calling for the student identities, and told them they could go ahead with a subpoena just for the terms of service agreement.
Interestingly, in discussing copyright law, the decision, issued on the very same day as Elektra v Barker, came to some of the same conclusions as Barker (such as holding that there is no “making available” right) and some very different conclusions (saying that “publication” and “distribution” are NOT synonyms in the Copyright Act and that there can NOT be a violation of the distribution right without dissemination of actual copies).
In yet another “making available” case, Atlantic v Brennan, where the judge rejected the RIAA’s reasoning, the RIAA has asked for what would be in effect a private meeting with the judge, a status conference to “discuss” the judge’s “questions”; since it’s a default judgment case, no one will be in the room except the RIAA lawyers and the judge.”
Ray Beckerman – Recording Industry vs The People
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Something stinks here. A private meeting? They don’t understand the questions? Where’s Brennan’s lawyer? Whoever’s representing him should also be privy.
They should all be fined for misuse of legal system. After all, they do it consistently.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Tony Its not private from a legal standpoint, Ray jsut called it this way since the defendant had not made ANY appearance before the court so far.
(the RIAA lawyer certified that he put the notice into the mail to some address where they claim it would reach the defendant, but who knows, maybe he has not the slightest clue that he is even sued at all)
April 4th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I imagine the content of the “Private meeting”: The RIAA to the judge: We give you a lot of money if you reverse your rulling overwise . . .
April 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“âpublicationâ and âdistributionâ are NOT synonyms”
Just great. Now we are more confused as to what is infringement.
So, files sharers out there. Before doing anymore sharing go get a law degree with a concentration in intellectual property and make sure that you know the difference between publication and distribution and what you are doing one or the other. You also have to know which of the two is legal and which is illegal.
Sure, the law degree will cost you several hundred thousand dollars, but if the court traps you for infringement it may bankrupt you.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
“know the difference between publication and distribution and what you are doing one or the other”
Actually it more complex.
File sharers need to now the difference between publication and distribution AND MAKING AVAILABLE and what you are doing one or the other
April 5th, 2008 at 4:57 am
There is no making available language in any US law. It only comes from the mouths of shill **AA lawyers (and other shills too I guess).
April 7th, 2008 at 8:20 am
It’s not a “private” meeting. If Brennan wants to be there, he or his attorney can be, but hasn’t showed up to court, responded to the court, or anything else. Hence the motion for default judgment. Beckerman is just spinning again.