Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Motion to Quash Subpoenas Granted in University of South Florida case, Interscope v. Does 1-40, for Improper Service of Subpoena

We have been advised that the motion by University of South Florida students in Interscope v. Does 1-40, in Tampa, Florida, has been granted, based upon the RIAA's improper service of the subpoena.

The following is the court's docket entry:

The following transaction was entered on 9/25/2007 at 3:55 PM EDT and filed on 9/25/2007 Case Name: Interscope Records et al v. Does Case Number:8:07-cv-1008 Filer: Document Number: 30 Docket Text: MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Thomas G. Wilson : Motion Hearing held on 9/25/2007 re [14] MOTION for protective order or in the
alternative to quash ex parte subpoena filed by Doe #37, Doe #21. Oral
argument by the parties. Motion granted on the ground it was not properly served. (2:45-3:38) (Williams, Carrie)
The students are represented by Michael Wasylik of Ricardo & Wasylik, in Dade City, Florida.

Commentary & discussion:

Ars Technica


Keywords: digital copyright online 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


AMD FanBoi said...

I hope news of this gets to Oklahoma State University students post haste.

And to the judge, who may want to follow his fellow judge here.

Megan said...

It's possible that I'm being over-optimistic. With this small victory, and the other victories of varying sizes over the last few weeks, I'm starting to feel like this is the beginning of the end.

The RIAA is altering its tactics a bit (see story above, for example) but judges seem to be getting wise to their shenanigans and are putting a stop to them.

It can't happen soon enough

DreadWingKnight said...

I do believe that this ruling is a big one for the region.

How big will be determined from the actual documentation on the ruling itself

raybeckerman said...

Since it was based on improper service of the subpoena, it's not going to be some crushing decision. It's going to be technical. And I imagine it's going to give them room to try again.

But it may evince some judicial resistance to the RIAA lawyers' lawless arrogance.