Slashdot Mirror
U.of Oregon Says No to RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The University of Oregon has filed a motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena for information on student identities in what is believed to be the first such motion made by a university with support from the state Attorney General. The motion (pdf) explains that it is impossible to identify the alleged infringers from the information the RIAA has presented: 'Five of the seventeen John Does accessed the content in question from double occupancy dorm rooms at the University. With regard to these Does, the University is able to identify only the room where the content was accessed and whether or not the computer used was a Macintosh or a PC ... The University cannot determine whether the content in question accessed by one occupant as opposed to another, or whether it was accessed instead by a visitor.' The AG's motion further argues (pdf) that "Plaintiffs' subpoena is unduly burdensome and overbroad. It seeks information that the University does not readily possess. In order to attempt to comply with the subpoena, the University would be forced to undertake an investigation to create discovery for Plaintiffs — an obligation not imposed by Rule 45. As the University is unable to identify the alleged infringers with any accuracy, it cannot comply with its federal obligation to notify students potentially affected by the subpoena. One commentator has likened the AG's argument to saying, in effect, that the RIAA's evidence is 'rubbish'."
... I'm interested to see how will subsequent rulings will affect the 'unsecured wireless defense'.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
If the colleges won't help the RIAA with their "Investigations" could this be the beginning of the end of the RIAA going after college students? Let's hope so. They already gave up on Harvard, too many students and professors that actually understand the law.
IANAL.
The U. of Oregon is right that the IP address is insufficient to identify the infringer. But I don't think that is a valid reason to deny a subpoena. Currently, the RIAA knows the alleged infringement came from university. If they can subpoena information that reduces that down to 2 likely suspects, then that is perfectly valid. The fact that this evidence alone cannot identify the individual precisely doesn't mean that they don't have a case.
The bullying tactics the lawyers have used in the suits typically reside under the term of "unduly burdensome".
I am glad that the U. of Oregon stood up to these guys but it seems that the idea of a warrant or getting this information as being "unduly burdensome" seems pretty broad.
Is there a solid definition in these types of cases for what is really unduly burdensome?
ACK
I was about to do the same, but than I wondered if he meant Rule 34 of the internet.
http://xkcd.com/305/
I live in the same town.
With Phil Knight's money behind them, a former State Attorney General as the head of the school, and a liberal-leaning state, this could really spell out some issues for RIAA.
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
Yeah, that's my college there. My RA got a notice for infringement so his internet was shut off. He's in a room by himself, so he maybe be screwed. UO is a very progressive school in a liberal town, it's great to hear they're standing up for students. From the article it doesn't sound like they're protecting any of our rights, just complaining that it's difficult for them... Oh well, either way it protects the students.
Lets see, If I where in a dorm room...
I would set up my own router with an name like $*@&_YOU
Then serve private IP to a firewall, then another to a wireless router
Then server the floor wireless.
Now, who did what?
I think that is the core of the UofO rebutial
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
"The University of Oregon has filed a motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena for information on student identities in what is believed to be the first such motion made by a university with support from the state Attorney General."
Amusingly enough, the University of Oregon's President used to be the state Attorney General. I suspect he had an easier time getting the current AG's support than most university presidents have.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Contrast this brave approach with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's decision to roll over and show its belly to the RIAA:
http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=5716&part=1
growing up in the 70's and 80's I remember radio stations having special 'whole album sides' plays. they'd even give you a count-down before they started the first uninterrupted track.
can't get much more blatant than THAT, can you?
if it was ok then - and the sony/betamax case already established our right to make personal copies of 'media' - what's changed?
what's changed is that media companies see the signaling of the end for their business model. they see they have 5-10 yrs left, if even that. they are trying to milk the system for all its worth, ONE final time.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It still does not reduce the poool of people by any reasonable amount....
If the room is dual occupancy, and there is evidence that the law was being broken using a PC in that room, and only one occupant of that room has a PC, then I'm sorry, but on balance it's looking like that person was the one breaking the law. Moreover, this is only 5 of the 17 Does. For another 9 of them, they do have the identity of the person whose credentials were used to access the wireless networking facilities, and apparently the argument is just that they can't prove the person who actually accessed the network was the person whose credentials were used.
Now, seriously, the university is claiming that in 16/17 cases, it can't identify the alleged infringers without interviewing or forensic examination. But is it being asked to, or is it just being asked to disclose the relevant information it does have so that further discovery can take place? This isn't the court case, and the University's information isn't a ruling that the law was actually broken. However, if you've got the credentials of someone whose computer is caught red-handed breaking the law, or the circumstances do realistically indicate whose computer was being used, then I think that is justification for seeking that interview and/or forensic examination via the court system to further the case.
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't comment on the legal technicalities that might be at work here, and I won't have much sympathy for the RIAA if it turns out that they've been abusing the system again. But on the face of it, this seems like a request for reasonable information from the University, based on a genuine belief that the law has been broken, and I don't see why it's inappropriate for the RIAA to attempt discovery here. If you start denying all discovery based on the possibility that someone with evidence against them may turn out not to be in the wrong, rather than conducting discovery and then examining the case in court, then it seems to me that you are breaking the legal system.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Having known people that worked in the very IT department that received these letters i can say they obviously know who it was. This is an act of defiance and not an attempt at a subtle one. Given the attitude of most of the residents of Eugene this is not at all suprising and the university will most likely let them drag this through courts repeatedly before giving them what they want.
I want to see some media with an "RIAA Free" sticker on it so I know where to spend my money. I recently left grad school for a job that actually pays money, and now I don't really mind paying for records. I just want to know where to plop the cash so that I'm not feeding the beast that would have loved to attack me a year ago.