p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- RIAA attack lawyers have been running wild since the Big 4 extortion unit first launched the bizarre sue ‘em all marketing campaign on behalf of its owners, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music.

But that could be about to change.

The procedures used by the RIAA are to be examined by a court whose decision will have the power to influence other courts.

A student is challenging the whole ex parte procedure the RIAA used on a number of grounds, and filed an appeal in the Second Circuit.

This news has been a long time coming, but is welcomed.

RIAA practices include suing ‘John Does’ without their knowing about and have never been subject to scrutiny by an appeals court.

Why not?

Because most of the ‘John Does’ never learn about the ‘ex parte’ proceeding until it’s too late.

However, says Ray Beckerman on Recording Industry vs The People »»»

In Arista Records v. Does 1-16, a “John Doe” case targeting students at the State University of New York at Albany, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued a stay of the RIAA subpoena and all proceedings during the pendency of John Doe #3’s appeal.

This is a case in which several John Does had moved to quash the subpoena, vacate the ex parte discovery order, and dismiss the complaint.

The motion to vacate, quash, and dismiss, was based on a number of grounds, including 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. Additionally, the “John Does” had requested that they be awarded their attorneys fees.

The Magistrate Judge denied the motion in its entirety. The District Court Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s decision 3 days later, before the RIAA had even filed papers responding to the students’ objections.

John Doe #3 filed an appeal, made a motion for a stay pending appeal, and requested an interim stay during the pendency of the motion for stay pending the appeal.

Today the motion for stay pending the determination of the appeal was granted.

April 23, 2009, Order of 2nd Circuit, granting stay pending appeal

Background documents:

Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena

Defendants’ Amended Memorandum of Law

Plaintiffs’ Opposition

Defendants’ reply memorandum of law

Supplemental Declaration of Richard A. Altman

February 18, 2009, Decision of Magistrate Judge

Declaration of Richard A. Altman and Objections

Decision affirming Magistrate Judge’s decision

Declaration in support of motion for stay

March 10, 2009, order granting interim stay

Plaintiffs’ memorandum in opposition to motion for stay pending appeal

Defendant’s reply memorandum in support of motion for stay pending appeal

Definitely stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

April, 2009