Slashdot Mirror
MIT, Boston College Refuse DMCA Subpoenas
phreakmonkey writes "Here's an interesting change of pace- According to today's Boston Globe, MIT and Boston College have both refused to turn over the identities of students to the RIAA under subpoenas. Citing failure of compliance with court rules and student privacy concerns, both colleges have refused to give out the names, addresses, or phone numbers of students based on their Kazaa screen names and IP addresses. I wonder how long the schools will be able to keep the RIAA's pack of lawyers at bay..."
these guys can put up a good fight... It'll keep the second years busy anyway.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
The BC guy even said that once the subpoena was filed 'correctly' they would comply (not they have a choice, of course). But this is more of a procedural issue then anything else. Of course, it shows that they are not interested in simply handing over names and IP address without actually needing too.
I wish my school was more interested in protecting student rights. The University "Police" gladly assisted in a 'raid' on a couple student's dorm rooms, after checking their class schedule to see when they had class, and thus out of the room (which is a pretty big assumption, given the propensity to skip class around here... but it turned out to be true)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
After reading this article, you can see that the schools will comply with the RIAA. The schools' problem is that they don't believe the subpoenas were correctly filed. They claim that they also had too little time to notify the students, which is required by some other federal laws.
So don't get your hopes up just yet. On the plus side, the RIAA said that they don't want to refile. So this may get interesting.
In what I've read so far, the two Boston colleges refused the subpoenas based on (1) they were filed in a Washington DC court and served in Boston's district, and (2) the colleges were not given sufficient time to prepare the information before the stated due dates. Essentially, in order to comply with the suits, they would violate their own respective privacy policies. However, there was nothing stated that the respective colleges would not comply once the suits are resubmitted according to their guidelines...
This shouldn't be newsworthy material.
If the RIAA can't provide a good case, it's only natural that a college looks out for it's students.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
This path has already been traveled by Verizon, so unless BC and MIT have some new legal angle, they're just wasting their money on lawyer.
Vote for Pedro
Actually, Verizon is still traveling that road. They appealed again. RTFA
I know the head of the MIT network. He is a VERY good tech guy with bonafide IETF credentials in security, and the legal aspects of security.
I used to love listening to him at lunch at conferences talking about the various legal troubles that MIT students would get into including the infamous bonsai kitten website rap. He talked about how a couple of armed Humane Society officers showed up in his office one day to demand he reviel what he knew about the students that put up the website.
His response was, "I can't tell you that, you have passed student privacy laws that prevent me from reveiling the students name". Officers left in a huff, but Jeff was right.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Education institutions, on the other hand, have previously existing restrictions on handling and protecting student records as defined by FERPA. As the article states, MIT expresses willingness to comply with properly issued subpoenas. Essentially, these institutions are asking the courts to establish which law has primacy, FERPA or DMCA, because the current situation potentially leaves them open to lawsuits brought by students over violation of privacy as outlined in FERPA if they comply with the DMCA-based information requests.
__
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
CNN Article
I think that Boston globe mixed up downloading and uploading. My impression is that RIAA can only really track users that are actively sharing files and only after a requesting that file and successfully downloading at least parts of it can they conclude that the person in other end is engaging in copyright infringing activities.
Now, being an MIT student I've heard of people who had been sharing files and were contacted by the IT department and asked to stop doing so (or they'd cut them off). They don't really care about downloading but uploading is bad. Generally they can only detect major bandwidth hoggers (of course easier to notice upstream peaks) so it might be a case of just some isolated kazaa-client used by a summer school student (not regular mit material) who was dum enough to not switch sharing off.
MIT's network btw. is completely open to the internet. Each dorm room computer is hooked directly on net without any firewalls. Students can get their own static ip addresses and dns entries in the form whatever.mit.edu. You can also use dhcp around campus and I'll bet that none of the addresses are logged. Alternatively you could also just pick an address in the right subnetwork and hope that nobody else is using it (not a good idea, unless you know what you're doing - any problems could get your net access revoked).
After some deliberation MIT could also say: sorry, ip address 1.2.3.4 was dynamically allocated and we don't hold records of the dynamic allocations. Better luck next time. Then again, the above is mostly just my impressions and I could be wrong in some of them.
Since the more people that look for this information, the better, here's the RIAA's board of directors ....
Roger Ames, Warner Music Group
Michele Anthony, Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
Val Azzoli, The Atlantic Group
Jose Behar, Univision Music Group
Bob Cavallo, Buena Vista Music Group
Ronnie Dashev, Maverick Recording Company
Clive Davis, RCA Music Group
Tracey Edmonds, Edmonds Record Group
Dick Griffey, Solar Records/J.Hines Co.
Zach Horowitz, Universal Music Group
Don Ienner, Sony Music U.S.
David Johnson, Warner Music Group
Lawrence Kenswil, Universal Music Group
Mel Lewinter, Universal Music Group
Alain Levy, EMI Recorded Music
Roy Lott, Virgin Records
David Munns, EMI Recorded Music Worldwide
Antonio Reid, Arista Records Inc.
Sylvia Rhone, Elektra Entertainment Group
Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, BMG Entertainment
Tom Silverman, Tommy Boy Music
Andy Slater, Capitol Records
Thomas Stein, BMG Entertainment
Tom Tyrrell, Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.
And this is important because it's finally a large corporation without the backchannel communications and handshakes that is willing to stand up to the recording cartel.
It got me to thinking "What can I do to support Verizon's case?" (even though I happen to work for one of their biggest competitors). I asked a few lawyer friends and they told me that I could file an amicus ("friend of the court") brief directly with the court hearing the appeal but unless I was representing a lot of other people from a major organization...it would pretty much be spinning my wheels. They said the best thing to do is to write letters to the editors of every paper in my area laying out the whole situation and the potential risk to our privacy. Even though federal judges are appointed and not elected, public opinion can often sway the legal interpretation that federal judges adopt (after all, nobody likes to be unpopular and flamed in the press) and it also influences future appointments.
So, eloquent Slashdot posters with a real understanding of the case...take your next Slashdot post and | lp -d editor. I know I will.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
The RIAA does not have any special powers here. Anyone can submit such a statement to the US District Court clerk.
The matching of the IP address to the student name is up to the University (acting as the ISP). Before the student can be ordered to pay damages there will have to a trial. The system administrator can be ordered to testify at the trial as to how the match was made. It is up to the jury to decide if the case is proven. As this would be a civil case, the standard is "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Matthew Oppenheim is the lead lawyer for the RIAA. Jonathan Lamy is another legal lackey. Amy Weiss is head of the RIAA Dis-Information Ministry. If you want to contact the RIAA here is their phone number and address: RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERICA 1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW SUITE 300 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 US Phone number is 202-775-0101 (Apparently this number was copywrighted by an individual who now wants to sue the RIAA for using it) Here is the board of directors for the RIAA (from www.boycott-riaa.com): I wanted to make sure everyone understands who is behind the decisions the the RIAA makes. If it is going after users, or going after software companies etc. These are the people who make those decisions. Remember when you buy recordings from the RIAA members you are helping to finance their assault on the copyright laws of this country, on the people who love music, and yourself. Bill Evans Roger Ames, Warner Music Group Michele Anthony, Sony Music Entertainment Inc. Val Azzoli, The Atlantic Group Jose Behar, Univision Music Group Bob Cavallo, Buena Vista Music Group Ronnie Dashev, Maverick Recording Company Clive Davis, RCA Music Group Tracey Edmonds, Edmonds Record Group Dick Griffey, Solar Records/J.Hines Co. Zach Horowitz, Universal Music Group Don Ienner, Sony Music U.S. David Johnson, Warner Music Group Lawrence Kenswil, Universal Music Group Mel Lewinter, Universal Music Group Alain Levy, EMI Recorded Music Roy Lott, Virgin Records David Munns, EMI Recorded Music Worldwide Antonio Reid, Arista Records Inc. Sylvia Rhone, Elektra Entertainment Group Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, BMG Entertainment Tom Silverman, Tommy Boy Music Andy Slater, Capitol Records Thomas Stein, BMG Entertainment Tom Tyrrell, Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. This list is directly from the RIAA website. lawmakers who do the RIAA's bidding: Rep. Robert C. Scott Rep. Adam B.Schiff Rep. Bob Goodlatte Rep. Darrell Issa Rep. Ed Bryant Rep. Elton Gallegly Rep. Henry Hyde Rep. Howard Coble Rep. Howard L Berman Rep. James Sensenbrenner Rep. John Conyers, Jr Rep. Lamar Smith Rep. Lindsey O. Graham Rep. Melissa Hart Rep. Ric Keller Rep. Robert Wexler Rep. William L. Jenkins Sen. Dianne Feinstein Sen. Fritz Hollings Sen. Gordon Smith Sen. Joseph Biden Sen. Rick Santorurn Sensenbrenner,(head of the copyright committee) took an RIAA funded 18,000 trip in Jan of 2003 to Taiwan and Thailand to warn them about copyright. This is Illegal. Learn more about it and write your represenatives requesting an ethics investigation here(webcasters alliance): http://216.116.171.66/zzformpage.asp
Matthew Oppenheim is the lead lawyer for the RIAA.
Jonathan Lamy is another legal lackey.
Amy Weiss is head of the RIAA Dis-Information Ministry.
If you want to contact the RIAA here is their phone number and address:
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERICA
1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW SUITE 300
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
US
Phone number is 202-775-0101 (Apparently this number was copywrighted by an individual who now wants to sue the RIAA for using it)
Here is the board of directors for the RIAA (from www.boycott-riaa.com):
I wanted to make sure everyone understands who is behind the decisions the the RIAA makes. If it is going after users, or going after software companies etc. These are the people who make those decisions. Remember when you buy recordings from the RIAA members you are helping to finance their assault on the copyright laws of this country, on the people who love music, and yourself.
Bill Evans
Roger Ames, Warner Music Group
Michele Anthony, Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
Val Azzoli, The Atlantic Group
Jose Behar, Univision Music Group
Bob Cavallo, Buena Vista Music Group
Ronnie Dashev, Maverick Recording Company
Clive Davis, RCA Music Group
Tracey Edmonds, Edmonds Record Group
Dick Griffey, Solar Records/J.Hines Co.
Zach Horowitz, Universal Music Group
Don Ienner, Sony Music U.S.
David Johnson, Warner Music Group
Lawrence Kenswil, Universal Music Group
Mel Lewinter, Universal Music Group
Alain Levy, EMI Recorded Music
Roy Lott, Virgin Records
David Munns, EMI Recorded Music Worldwide
Antonio Reid, Arista Records Inc.
Sylvia Rhone, Elektra Entertainment Group
Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, BMG Entertainment
Tom Silverman, Tommy Boy Music
Andy Slater, Capitol Records
Thomas Stein, BMG Entertainment
Tom Tyrrell, Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.
This list is directly from the RIAA website.
lawmakers who do the RIAA's bidding:
Rep. Robert C. Scott
Rep. Adam B.Schiff
Rep. Bob Goodlatte
Rep. Darrell Issa
Rep. Ed Bryant
Rep. Elton Gallegly
Rep. Henry Hyde
Rep. Howard Coble
Rep. Howard L Berman
Rep. James Sensenbrenner
Rep. John Conyers, Jr
Rep. Lamar Smith
Rep. Lindsey O. Graham
Rep. Melissa Hart
Rep. Ric Keller
Rep. Robert Wexler
Rep. William L. Jenkins
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Sen. Fritz Hollings
Sen. Gordon Smith
Sen. Joseph Biden
Sen. Rick Santorurn
Sensenbrenner,(head of the copyright committee) took an RIAA funded 18,000 trip in Jan of 2003 to Taiwan and Thailand to warn them about copyright. This is Illegal. Learn more about it and write your represenatives requesting an ethics investigation here(webcasters alliance):
http://216.116.171.66/zzformpage.asp
The RIAA is DIRTY! Use the system to beat them at their own game. We out number them about 1,000,000 to 1. Never forget that, write congress today.
(Sorry for the double post, keep forgetting to change the formating.
Copyright holders cannot just issue subpoenas themselves under this law. They have to file a sworn declaration of alleged infringement with the US Federal District court clerk, who will issue the subpoena. Lying on this declaration would be a felony. Using the information obtained for any purpose other than protecting copyrights would be illegal.
How about the official mit news release here.
It better explains what they are really doing.
I'm no longer a student there but I believe that in order to use the wireless on the campus you need some sort of account. From what I hear, this involves identifying yourself as a student (with some login/pw info) as well as matching MAC address. So that's pretty much the easiest way you could identify students on that campus.
Back in the day, land lines were accessed by user/pw too which would identify the student with an IP.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
So when they find the copyright violater/sharer, confirm it (how else are they going to get a subpeona unless it's verifiable?), and follow these legal channels, why are they in the wrong?
That's the problem...the RIAA got Congress to pass a law that says they can write their own subpeonas without first proving to a judge that they had enough evidence to do so.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
All of the examples you give describe search warrant / court order situations. But the DMCA cut the judge out of the loop. Anyone can get the equivalant of a court ordered search warrant at will. *I* could file the appropriate paperwork and force Slashdot to turn over *YOUR* IP address, then I can go to your ISP and force them to turn over your name. It should NOT be possible for me to get your name and addresswithout firstmaking a case before a judge.
The only penalty I could find for abusing the system is perjury for claiming to be (or represent) the copyright holder. I'm not sure if there are any penalties for making bogus claims that you infringed my copyright, but even if there are the standard I have to meet to defend myself is absurdly low.
The US congress essentially turned over actual judicial powers to anyone and everyone who claims someone is infringing their copyright.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.