Sunday, April 20, 2008

John Doe #3 moves to quash University of Arizona subpoena; University responds to subpoena anyway

It appears that the subpoena response of the University of Arizona in LaFace v. Does 1-14 (Phoenix, AZ) was turned over one day after John Doe #3 had filed a motion to quash the subpoena, and on the same day that John Doe #8 joined in John Doe #3's motion.

We have no idea how this happened, but it would seem that (a) the University of Arizona should not have responded to the subpoena when a motion to quash the subpoena had been filed, and (b) the motions to quash aren't going to be of much use to John Does #3 and #8, since their identities have already been disclosed.

Hopefully we'll be able to fill in more blanks on this mystery, after we hear from the attorneys in Arizona.

Motion to quash by John Doe #3*
John Doe #8's Joining in motion to quash by John Doe #3*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation



Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property

11 comments:

bbsux said...

Ray, so what can be done about this? Can the university be held liable?

Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...

I wouldn't recommend trying, given that the university has essentially killed the suits by their technical notes about the possible inaccuracy of the identifications.

Although it would be terribly amusing if the RIAA somehow had a hand in this confusion (which would very likely be illegal activity).

John said...

bbsux: Also, what if they didn't know there was a motion pending?

Ray Beckerman said...

I can't comment on what happened here until I get more information.

It seems very strange to me.

Why would the university, which was so careful about the wording of its response, be so careless about turning it over when there's a motion to quash pending?

Just doesn't compute.

Gnodab said...

Ray,

I've been a long time visitor of slashdot, and have always appreciated your clear and concise explanations of IP/Copyright law. I tried to find a way to send you a message on there after reading your post on the recent law that was declared partially unconstitutional, but couldn't figure out how to. Anyways, Thanks! Keep up the site and the good work!

Chris

Anonymous said...

Ray,

Note that the University of Arizona is located in Tucson, AZ.

Arizona State University is located in Phoenix, AZ.

You've got either the location, or the university, wrong.

XK-E

Ray Beckerman said...

Anonymous XK-E, if you'd read the papers carefully you'd know that I have the location right, and it's the RIAA that got the location wrong.

Anonymous said...

Ray,

I live in Arizona, and I know the difference between the UofA and ASU - and where each of them are located.

Looking at the UofA subpoena response you'll notice that the notary stamp is for Pima County. Tucson is located in Pima county.

Phoenix is located in Maricopa county.

XK-E

Ray Beckerman said...

Anonymous XKE, would you please read page 3 of the motion to quash before commenting further.

Anonymous said...

I'm a different anon, but I'd just like to clarify. The RIAA filed this in Phoenix, when it should've been filed in Tucson.

However, the anon was correct in saying that ASU is in Phoenix and U of A is in Tucson.

So that's what the problem is. The case is in Phoenix (though misfiled) and the university is in Tucson. I should know. I'm an ASU alumnus.

I realize that Ray said this already, but I actually had to read the PDF before I understood what that meant. It sounded like Ray was arguing that the universities were in different places than they actually are somehow, and I know he didn't intend anything of the sort.

Ray Beckerman said...

I said the case was brought in Phoenix, not that it was properly brought in Phoenix.