Friday, December 28, 2007

In College of William & Mary case, RIAA submits Oklahoma State University decision as "supplemental authority"

Subsequent to the filing of its reconsideration motion in the uncontested "John Doe" case against College of William & Mary students, Interscope v. Does 1-7, the RIAA has submitted its victorious decision in the Oklahoma State University case, Arista v. Does 1-11.

Interscope v. Does 1-7 is the case where Judge Kelley sua sponte denied the RIAA's application for discovery.

RIAA motion to submit "supplemental authority"*

* 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


Anonymous said...

Perhaps pointing out to this court how all the information that the subpoena is based on was illegally gathered by unlicensed investigators would be enough to keep it quashed.

Also the Oklahoma court makes a big deal about the unserved Doe Defendants not having any rights at all to question the expedited discovery request to the University at this step in the process. This logic is so wrong is so many ways that it's mind boggling that one judge would ever say it--or that another one could ever consider also accepting that badly flawed premise.

>Anon #1

Jadeic said...

I sure Judge Kelly is really going to appreciate this unwarranted prod in the 'right' direction.


Reluctant Raconteur said...


The evidence has never been declared illegal, or inadmissible, so that is not a consideration at this time.

The concern to me is that J Doe be allowed to challenge the subpoena. If they have no standing to challenge, then the information will remain acceptable.

James said...

"The evidence has never been declared illegal, or inadmissible, so that is not a consideration at this time."-Russell

This is because the RIAA has tucked its tail between its legs and moved to dismiss cases with counterclaims regarding the legality of MediaSentry's investigation, conveniently avoiding the chance of any such declaration (see also: Sony v. Crain)