LEGAL WRANGLINGS IN RIAA FILE-SHARING CASE

Barristers Glenn Peterson and Daniel Ballard, representing a woman known as nycfashiongirl—you should IM her, she loves that—say that the RIAA is violating a P2P user’s privacy.

Here’s a quote from their filing, because you deserve something for reading this far: “It is precisely this evidence that a judge should review before issuing a subpoena that invades the privacy and other fundamental rights of peer-to-peer file sharers. RIAA has instead chosen to target peer-to-peer file sharers by using a subpoena statute created before peer-to-peer applications even existed. That statute, if it is constitutional at all, cannot be stretched to ensnare those who unwittingly permit others access to their home computers."

The RIAA’s Matt Oppenheim was non-plussed: “The legal arguments are so novel as concepts that no one's ever considered them, and with good reason The RIAA is not the government. They (nycfashiongirl's attorneys) simply are putting forward arguments that have no colorable basis in law or fact."

But a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may give nycfashiongirl’s attorney’s something to read out loud in an excited voice. Though the case was unrelated, the legal ramifications may provide some fuel for the fire. The court ruled that a laywer was acting unreasonably when it sent blanket subpoenas to internet service provider NetGate, asking for “all copies of e-mails sent or received by anyone” at a company called Integrated Capital Associates.

In the unanimous decision, Judge Alex Kozinski wrote: “The subpoena power is a substantial delegation of authority to private parties, and those who invoke it have a grave responsibility to ensure it is not abused.”

And now we’ve put ourselves to sleep.