main

Judge rejects subpoenas in music-use case

exit   on 10 August 2003 - 21:19 · 12 comments & 519 views

Advertisement (Why?)
A federal judge rejected an attempt by the recording industry to uncover the names of Boston College and MIT students suspected of online music piracy.

U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro said Friday that under federal rules, the subpoenas, which were issued in Washington, cannot be served in Massachusetts.

The two schools filed motions last month asking the judge to quash the subpoenas, which request names and other information for one Massachusetts Institute of Technology student and three BC students who allegedly obtained music using various screen names.

The Washington-based Recording Industry Association of America issued a statement calling the ruling a "minor procedural issue."

The ruling "does not change an undeniable fact -- when individuals distribute music illegally online, they are not anonymous and service providers must reveal who they are," the RIAA said.

News source: Boston.com Business


Industry spokesman Jonathan Lamy declined to say whether the RIAA was planning to refile in Boston.

Phone messages seeking comment from BC, MIT and the schools' attorney, Jeffrey Swope, were not immediately returned Friday evening.

The subpoenas are part of the RIAA's nationwide effort to crack down on copyright violators using music sharing software online to distribute songs.

This spring, a federal judge affirmed the constitutionality of a law allowing music companies to force Internet providers to release the names of suspected music pirates upon subpoena from any federal court clerk's office. The ruling has been appealed.

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 12 additional comments
#1 Homer™ on 10 Aug 2003 - 21:34
Hahahahahahhahahahhha in yer face!!!!
#2 bangbang023 on 10 Aug 2003 - 22:16
hey what do you know, they are not above the law.
(3 replies) #3 Jonny6pak on 10 Aug 2003 - 22:51
I wouldn't start celebrating. This isn't a big win over the RIAA.
#3.1 macrosslover on 11 Aug 2003 - 04:44
i wouldn't go that far, i think it's big. now this means they are going to have to go to every single state basically to properly serve violaters. they can't send them out from D.C. to the rest of the country. if other federal judges pickup on this and they lose the appeal also then they will have to spend even more money and time going to each state.
#3.2 Mav Phoenix on 11 Aug 2003 - 05:23
Yeah but they'll probably do that anyway, losing money that way is better than losing it via pirates in their eyes.
#3.3 mipra on 18 Jun 2004 - 10:09
well..yeah for them
(1 reply) #4 werejag on 10 Aug 2003 - 23:53
little wins will surfice
#4.1 mipra on 18 Jun 2004 - 10:09
indeed..just a little bit
#5 Gary_Player on 11 Aug 2003 - 02:29
Anything to stop this rediculous "*whine* Oh we're not making enough money already waaaaaaaa" garbage
#6 SariN on 11 Aug 2003 - 03:00
yay!
(1 reply) #7 cork1958 on 11 Aug 2003 - 03:11
3 cheers for the judge!! Heck yeah. Nice to see a judge not cave in to the all powerful RIAA.
#7.1 mipra on 18 Jun 2004 - 10:10
horayy

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)