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..."

Comments

Not very long

[autopr0n]

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)

Not entirely true

[Adam9]

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.

Technicality

[Orne]

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...

Head of MIT networking

[MerlynEmrys67]

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.

Re:More than just a bump in the cobblestone road..

[SomePoorSchmuck]

Verizon did want to hand over names and IPs, and I can assure you they have much more legal firepower than a college...

Verizon, as a large corporation, may have astronomically more money than MIT et al, but this doesn't necessarily make the cases equivalent. Verizon's refusal to submit is based on simple market pressure -- the fear that if they don't make a show of protecting the heretofore assumed privacy of their users [laughable as that may be], then a significant number of users will defect to other providers.

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.

__

Re:Seriously ...

[DeepRedux]

To get a subpoena nothing needs to be proved. What is required is "a sworn declaration to the effect that the purpose for which the subpoena is sought is to obtain the identity of an alleged infringer and that such information will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under this title." 512 (h)(2)(c) Of course, if they just made something up, that would be perjury (a felony).

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."

RIAA Details

[GoodNicsTken]

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.

Re:More than just a bump in the cobblestone road..

[inburito]

How about the official mit news release here.
It better explains what they are really doing.

Re:As one who DOES NOT engage in copyright violati

[Alsee]

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.

-