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.
Rule 45 is fine and all, but what about Rule 34?
Fnord.
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
If they can't identify "subscribers", how can they pass along DMCA complaints or terminate the accounts of repeat offenders? If they can't do those things, does that eliminate their Safe Harbor status?
If I were an RIAA shark, I'd smell blood in the water.
everyone still keeps acting like the riaa can be defeated with reason and legal leg work. as the recent jury trial showed, reason and legal legwork cannot defeat legions of well-funded lawyers. the only way to defeat the riaa is to wait them out
once there was a time when we were nothing but small mammals, and the world was ruled by terrible lizards. in the realm of intellectual property, this is that time. the internet, of course, obliterates the old economic models of distribution. the old economic models are the riaa's sustenance. so you defeat the riaa by waiting for it's food source to dry up
in the meantime, do what little mammals do best: be nocturnal, be quick, be small, be quiet. mask yourself, use proxies, do all manner of obfuscation and security through obscurity. the internet has no legal jurisdiction. don't fight them head on. just hide
there will be of course casualties, even a dying lizard can swing it's tail mightily. but in the end, it will be dead, and we shall inherit the earth. patience my friends. you cannot defeat the terrible lizard head on. just wait for it to die of starvation
it's economic model is history. the only one who doesn't know it is the riaa. there is no reasoning with the terrible beast, it's behaviors are not, and never have been, and never will be rational. you do not reason with a legal attack dog
wait, and the riaa will die. stop trying to reason with the unreasonable
suing soccer moms and grandmothers for thousands of dollars is not the actions of a rational entity. it is the mark of a last desperate stand, and the end is in sight
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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
A subpoena for an IP trace ("tell me who owned this internet access account on this date") is not normally a burden. If the subpoena instead requested the school "identify who was using this computer at this time", the school's response fits. The subpoena requires the school investigate, not just disgorge a few records.
Maybe all the students in the dorm could each claim they were the guilty party? ("I'm Sparticus!")
www.cgstock.com
Agreed. However, when someone says, "We would like to help you bully people, but we just don't have the information you want." they're hardly taking a stand.
The way I understand this, the RIAA subpoenaed the identity of the person using a certain IP at a certain time. The university responded that they don't know and it isn't their job to find out. So couldn't the RIAA just modify their subpoena to ask for the information that the university does have (the dorm room, MAC address, OS info, etc), and then do further investigation on their own? At that point they still have to convince a judge that they have enough evidence to go to court (provided they don't scare the students into settling). I definitely agree that this is not enough information by itself to find someone liable for copyright infringement, but I guess I don't see why that is a valid excuse for the university to not provide the information that they have.
Go Ducks!
It's about time someone fought back. UofO has the backing of Phil Knight (founder of Nike), so there should be plenty of money to fight off the RIAA should things get ugly.
Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time: http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/
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
Back in the day, we used to tape tapes and albums with absolutely no consequences. And we still bought new tapes and albums anyway. Today, we are assumed to be criminals for doing the same thing, only now in digital format. What is a person to do?
I'll think I will stick to used CD stores for now. Reduce, reuse, recycle.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
student legal services at one big-12 university is reportedly telling students to fess up and settle, because nobody with big enough pockets to fight a goliath has yet walked in the door.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I was waiting to hear about this, RIAA/MPAA and other have been doing a lot of finger pointing and taking advantage of the legal system to do a lot of their work and people are realizing that RIAA/MPAA is collecting the money bot not necessarily paying the bills for investigation and enforcement.
I have been expecting the pendulum to swing the other way to either strike down these things due to the financial burden on the enforcement/ judicial/ corrections or to start taxing (rightly so) all those poor artists of which they have been protecting their rights.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
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.
but i would assert that sea changes in business and culture can render your entire legal argument moot
for example, in a world where no artist signs with any music label, because they can get more money putting their own shingle on the internet, then the rights of labels that don't exist economically anymore don't have any meaning
it will take time to arrive at this new world, so perhaps we have to wait a lot longer than i might wish
to put it another way: there is a great legal framework in place concerning the rights of player piano music roll manufacturers
but in world where there are no player pianos, except in museums, then what does that legal framework mean?
likewise, i am not going to counter your legal arguments, your legal arguments are 100% correct
but i am going to say that over time, the entire legal realm the arguments you are making exist in will become defunct
it will take awhile, but you have an entire generation of young people who know what i am talking about. when such children are in their 40s and 50s, and are running whatever dried up remains of bertelsmann, coumbia records, etc. still exists, then what will any of this sound and fury really mean anymore?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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
I read it as, we're not going to help you bully people, and here's a plausible legal explanation why not.
it is just that, at times, the existence of things like the RIAA, the jury verdicts for people like oj simpson and robert blake and phil spector (ironically, a music mogul), they leave me profoundly disillusioned with the law
that is, in the case of the RIAA, the law seems less interested in morality and justice, and more interested in protecting the rights of corporations, and the famous and rich
and in such a mindset, i say the legal battle cannot be won, because the odds are stacked against us, who are interested in morality and reason. and so i punt the outcome of this battle to the future, when the attack dogs of the RIAA have no more funding (as most certainly will be the case, as SCO illustrates: lawsuits are not a valid businessplan)
but i don't want my disillusionment and cynicism to infect you. we need the likes of you. the fight is a good and important fight, no matter what the odds. to at least show someone somewhere that these slimeballs will not proceed unopposed. at the very least, that has meaning and value
here are two quotes i'd like to share with you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/weekinreview/28liptak.html?ex=1351224000&en=4d08acb4582d35e9&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
and, from the great sidney lumet, david mamet, and paul newman:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084855/quotes
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I really do love Oregon. Lived here all my life and its stuff like this that just makes me feel good. I have a TON of friends at UofO and it makes me feel good to know that someone cares about their rights and isnt being a corporate and political tool. Plus for a state school, UofO rocks
This is the first time that I've seen where someone, most surprisingly an actual non-party, is attempting to require the RIAA to prove their case at this point, where they probably cannot prove it at all!
One thing impressive about this. Who really wants to find out that the opposition to your case is coming in on the State Attorney General's letterhead?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
As a former employee of the U of O's IT department, I can attest that they search out rogue DHCP servers on the network and remove them. So I'm afraid that won't work.
Maybe you're a more complicated person than I am.
I'm a simple man.
I see some bad guys picking on some defenseless people, I jump in and try to help. Whether I will ultimately win or lose is a matter of indifference to me, because I have no control over the ultimate outcome. What I have control of is that I am fighting on the right side.
All I know about the motion the Oregon State Attorney General made on behalf of the University of Oregon is this:
-it is legally right
-it is morally right
-it's the first time a university or an AG has stepped into this business since it began in February
-the RIAA lawyers can make no intelligible response to it, since it is based on facts which the RIAA's own witnesses have already admitted under oath, and
-it's a terrible blow to the RIAA, once which they never anticipated.
So I'm smiling. And you should be too.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Woohoo! Makes me feel good to be a duck!
Do not anger the worm.
and when you said "more complicated person than i am" you are giving me more credit than i am due
;-)
i believe cynicism is a poor replacement for heart, and you have heart. to hell with my pessisism, keep up the good fight!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
AMEN brother!
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain. --Friederich Schiller
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.
RICO is so often brought up in these discussions that I finally went looking to see what it would take to get a RICO indictment and eventual conviction. I'm not so sure that it applies.
Note: I got my RICO information from Wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth.
First off, RICO requires that the individual or groups commit two of 35 different crimes. Extortion is in the list, but not many of the other crimes could apply to the RIAA no matter how far we stretch them. I think even extortion is a bit of a stretch. The ones that are even worth considering are:
I think we can ignore things like murder-for-hire, slavery, etc.
There's a fine line between extortion and blackmail. In both cases, there's a threat for gain. "Pay up or else!" In extortion, the threat is generally something illegal; for blackmail, the threat is normally something that would be legal, if it weren't being done as part of the threat for gain. Certainly, the RIAA is well within the bounds of legal behavior to bring lawsuits, and the courts are very reluctant to limit access to the courts under any circumstances.
To show extortion, one would need to demonstrate that bringing the suits is, itself, improper. That's not impossible, particularly if we can prove that the RIAA threatened litigation that it knew it couldn't win, but there are other rules for dealing with threats of frivolous lawsuits. My knowledge of that end of the law is pretty shaky — does anybody know what those rules are? Does anyone know if one can use them to demonstrate that the legal threat was, in fact, extortion?
For blackmail, one merely needs to demonstrate that the threat was used for gain. Unfortunately, once again, the courts like to encourage parties to settle. Settlement negotiations are almost impossible to characterize as blackmail.
RICO was written with obstruction of justice in mind. The idea was that organized crime would threaten witnesses, suborn testimony, etc. Some of the things that I've heard in a few RIAA cases do push this line, but I don't think they cross it. There's a big difference between trying to subpoena a minor and depose her outside the presence of her guardian, versus saying "If you testify, I'll kill your pets, your kids, and your grandparents, in alphabetical order."
Fraud only seems to apply if the letters they send out contain fraudulent offers. I'm not sure how this could apply, but it's worth examination.
Racketeering refers to a completely illegal business model - e.g., a "Protection Racket," where you pay for "insurance" against bad things happening to your business — where the bad things are the insurer actively trashing your business. If extortion applies to a large proportion of lawsuits (enough to show a clear, deliberate pattern), then racketeering probably applies as well. However, I don't think extortion could be demonstrated.
Ultimately, much as I'd personally love to see RICO applied, I don't think it does. They key point is that the courts don't like to limit access to the courts, even by a chilling effect. Everybody has a right to their day in court. That, in turn, leads to the abuses we see where a big corporation can afford more and bigger lawyers than small mom-and-pop businesses, who settle cases that they could win because they'd lose more money in legal fees than the settlement.
What we need is a revamp of this part of the legal system. Frankly, I don't see how that can be done without free, government-appointed counsel in every case, which is even less workable than the current system.
--Somebody infect me with a
and yeah, go ducks!
Pete Forsyth
I'd give you one, but writing out a precise definition would be unduly burdensome.
The television will not be revolutionized.
The fact is that these kids are in school and paying huge sums of money in tuition, books, et al., and the RIAA apparently feels that they are entitled to a part of that money regardless of deservedness. I guess they feel they will have a better financial yield scoopin' kids at school than they would trying to hang some single mother on an AOL dial-up connection that uses it for email only.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Oregon Is the home of the Linux foundation, Linus, TVLinux, Silicon Forest, and many other Open Source and techie projects. The state trys to protect its citizens from evil. (Not enough from software monoplies, but trying).
Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
It's possible they meant that, but it's still not being honest, not being helpful to society as a whole, and not having the courage of their convictions. If everyone has to find loopholes because people can't come together and right a wrong, then everyone will eventually lose, as the loopholes are plugged... or removed, or whatever you do with loopholes ;)
"Ancient ecosystems have very different rules from the modern legal system"
i did not know that!
thank you sir, for shining the light of your great intellect upon this discussion. i am mightily humbled
i thought for sure that the jurassic period was exactly like business law, and that the paleozoic era was exactly like real estate law
boy do i need to rethink my point of view on life now
pffffffft
i think you might suffer from a fallacy known as "taking the analogy way too seriously"
i heartily await your next rhetorical salvo, in which you inform shakespeare that his love sonnets are invalid, because human love is not, in fact, a flowering shrub (otherwise known as a rose)
you're a genius sir
i mean that in the most sarcastic way possible
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In light of the high-profile cases you cited, I can understand why you feel cynical. The fact is, there are probably thousands of cases being heard every day, some being found in favor of justice, others being brought to different conclusions. And there's a few counterpoints to the popular belief that "he who has the deepest, fullest pockets wins." There's Leona Helmsley (yeah, I know, easy example), whose wealth couldn't save her from a conviction for tax evasion and fraud. Even though OJ's "dream team" bested the prosecutors in criminal court, the victims' families were able to get his wallet and then some in civil court (Blake's case ended similarly). Spector's case is a mistrial, not an acquittal, and prosecutors said they'll try him again. We often don't see or remember the ultimate conclusions of these cases, because the media companies are more interested in the ratings that the "courtroom drama" provides rather than the outcome. Everyone likes a violent prize fight, but few will watch a battle won by a technicality.
Also, nobody's pockets are infinite, as you point out. Like the defendants in the above cases, the music labels lose money with each John Doe they try to fish out. I think you'll find that with each victory in court, no matter how small, will hasten the day when the labels find that they really are out of cash. I think the irony may then be that no one will believe them, as they've been whining about losing revenue despite the current boom in paid-for digital music.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
I believe you are wrong on the point that anyone can derive revenue from recorded music. We have spent the last 10 years or so proving that everything on the Internet is free. All micropayment and subscription plans for the general public have failed. Nobody is interested in paying for something from site A when they can have the same (or at least similar) content from site B. There are no barriers to entry on the Internet that prevent site B from starting up and offering something similar to site A. Today most of the revenue on the Internet is from advertising, not subscriptions or sales.
I don't see any way artists can reverse this trend. It is going to be shared and redistributed for free no matter what the artist wants. They can't control this. Sure, they might get some money from dedicated die-hard fans but once their music reaches a level where it is "popular", that is the end of the revenue stream because it will be taken over by redistribution for free.
It is over for recorded music sales. The stuff has no value anymore. Nobody I know would pay a dime for music when they can get other music, just as good, for free.
I noticed in your post (#21211385) that you didn't capitalize or use periods. I didn't mind because what you were saying had reason and format (I'm not 100% behind what you said...). This post (#21212349) explains exactly why I didn't mind.
you keep up your good work too
True enough, but you can't be legally required to do something and the just say "No, I don't wanna". In this case I see them saying something more along the lines of "No, I don't wanna and here's why you can't make me".
I remember back in the day when I was a freshman. This was back when Napster was just fading and 100 other services (mostly DC) were taking its place. I had a conversation with one of the network admins and he told me that it all didn't bother them too much because the majority of the traffic was to other Universities, which went over Internet 2 pipes and didn't end up effecting the network bottlenecks all that much. I could have remembered that wrong, or he could have been full of crap, but it made sense to me. That may have all changed by now too.
And by the way... Dixon for Heisman! GO DUCKS!
Try to get those arbitration only clauses in your terms and service, or license agreement, overturned. It was a BFD when the most liberal courts in the nation did finally overturn one such clase as "unconscionable" in California a few months ago.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This is all well and good when the party wanting the info happens to be the Bad Guy du jour. I wonder if there's any possible network abuse (spamming, sending death threats, any of the 4 horsemen (terrorist|drugdealer|kidnapper|childpornographer), etc) that might make people question the sense in not having a person accountable for a node's actions.
Also, I suspect that if the university can't find someone to pass the buck to, then it's going to stop with them.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Unfortunately, everyone can't afford their day in court - especially against a well-funded adversary willing to spend money wantonly that they know they will never recover from the Defendants. From what I see, in my opinion the RIAA is practicing Barratry, and that should fall under RICO somehow.
The worst problem here is that nobody that the RIAA is suing is making a penny off of the act of filesharing. In a just society, the RIAA should only be able to collect Actual Damages plus legal fees. The question of the Constitutionality of these exorbitant Statutory Awards - particularly in light of the sending a message context, seeks to punish one person for the acts of 6 million. That's not just!
I, for one, am not convinced that the RIAA members have ever lost even a single sale to filesharing. I do know for certain that their mantra of: each download = a lost sale is complete and utter garbage, and that they should be sanctioned severely every time they bring up the lie in court!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They keep records of which computer (well, which MAC address anyway) had which IP address at which time. They've done that for a long time
Do not anger the worm.
1. Never change the deal.
2. No names.
3. Never open the package.
As a diehard Beaver, I never say this, but just this once:
GO DUCKS!
Actually, I might have thought it once or twice last Saturday when they played USC.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
.....lawsuits are not a valid business plan.....
/. user. You should copyright, patent, or trademark it!
Hey that sounds like an excellent sig for a
All theory is gray
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.
Barratry is not under RICO, as I understand it.
While I'd also agree that the "illegal copy = lost sale" mantra is nonsense, I don't see it as sanctionable to bring it up in court, particularly if they have evidence (however slender) to back it up. (Outright fraud is another matter; manufactured evidence is perjury, after all.) Once the evidence is presented, it's up to a jury to determine how believable it is. That's a matter of fact, not a matter of law, in determining damages.
Ultimately, the real problem with the legal system is, as you note, that not everyone can afford it. Of course, you can always file Pro Se, but your lack of experience will cost you severely. Sadly, a lot of US legal principles are just that: principles, with no basis in reality.
One of my common rants on the subject is the lack of access to the laws, the text itself. In principle, you shouldn't need to pay to find out what the laws are, so you can follow them! In practice, you'd need to buy a very expensive book. The principle is still technically followed, since you can go to any jurisdictional seat and ask to review the books yourself, for free. (I've done this in fighting a parking ticket, pulling the statute from City Hall.) Can you imagine hopping on your horse and riding out to Washington, DC to review a federal statute because you can't afford to buy the book?
This is improving with the Internet, but there are still some problems. For example, Texas building codes.
--Somebody infect me with a
You're a living slashdot meme!
1. Do Nothing
2. ???
3. RIAA implodes.
The problem with your position is that someone has to fight the RIAA. If you don't fight them on the legal front they can use the legal system to maintain and extend their position.
They win some legal cases. They get some large settlements. They start using the settlements as evidence of lost revenue. Wrong but a good move. They go to congress and buy legislation. They establish a foot hold.
Also your player piano description has a few problems. The main one being that some of the laws created about player piano rolls still apply today to every book, movie, and music made.
I find being offended by me offensive.
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.
"Unduly burdensome" here means they would have to do the RIAA's investigative work for them.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
player pianos existed more or less simultaneously with radio, and slightly before the phonograph. your sentiments are nice but founded on bad info. also, the burden is on you to come up with evidence that such a "sea change" can or will happen. i'd love for you to be right, i really would. but my band isn't signed, and as of 2007, we'd be better off if we were, if only slightly.
The RIAA is a bunch of greedy money loving bastards who would sooner sue their own mothers than do something useful in the world. What a legacy to pass on to your kids..."What does your dad do?"..."He ruins people's lives for a quick buck."..."So he's a hitman?"..."No, he's a lawyer". It's people like those at the RIAA that give lawyers a bad name.
-asleep
I read it more as "We don't have the money, time, or people to try and verify what you claim with the information given to us." I don't think this is so much a "standing up for student's rights" issue as a "you want us to do all the legwork for you and not pay us" issue.
"But this one goes to 11!"
I read it as "your evidence doesn't show that the person to whom the IP address is registered is a copyright infringer, and we are prohibited by law from divulging any identity information about anyone else".
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This may be something unique to the University of Oregon, but I would be curious to see if the challenge of the subpoena would stand when applied to other universities.
The network architecture at my college was similar. However there were more specific rules involved. In the case of my dorm, each student was assigned a particular IP address, even a physical port in the room. There is also an agreement that is signed by the student that they agree to control access to that access point. (Lots of other nitty details, no routers...etc)
Without us falling into the trap of confusing what a judge would decide vs what we as a tech savvy community would want, would it be possible for a University's own access policies to be used against it in a refusal.
For UoO, they do appear to have valid claim to deny the request, but it seems that if they were more 'precise' in delivering internet access then they would not be able to refuse the subpoena.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Isn't that up to the courts to decide, and not the university?
"But this one goes to 11!"
A couple items you may have missed in your frantic rush to the keyboard to post your (incorrect) statements:
World of Warcraft. iTunes. The New York Times. Countless other services that require small payments in order to enjoy them.
WoW(tm) has over 7 million subscribers, each of them paying at least $13 per month.
That's 91 million dollars a month. That's just a few million shy of 1.1 billion dollars a year.
--
I'm sorry, but your argument is made of fail.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Of course it is, ultimately. But lawyers have to make that preliminary determination as well. The Attorney General had to advise the University as to whether the subpoena was legal, and concluded that it was not.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Would that involve making the lawyers watch while masked people pirate copyrighted music?
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Yes but... the way our legal system works, the legal framework regarding player piano music roll manufacturing gets adapted, updated and modified to cover this newfangled marconi device all the kids are talking about. The radio precedents then become the ones considered when analyzing whether the VCR is akin to the Boston Strangler, and those precedents are the ones that get used to consider Napster and so on and so forth. I haven't seen a carbolic smoke ball on a store shelf in a long time, but unilateral contracts are still valid. Donaghue and Stevenson are long dead, but the tort of negligence lives on, etc. etc. The RIAA may die, but whether making available is copyright infringement will probably be relevant long after the RIAA's last member label goes into Chapter 7.
MHO. YMMV. Any resemblance between this post and real persons, or reality in general, was accidental.
I can assure you for a Beaver fan to say "GO DUCKS!" assures that they will be flayed by other Beaver fans.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Nice Porsche"
"Thanks"
"What's your father do?"
"Lawyer"
"Nice, What college are you going to?"
"Either Harvard or Yale"
Yeah, I'm sure they weep themselves to sleep at night.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
they will jump on anything that someone claims is 'green' without bothering with the tedious work of actually thinking.
and they can not drive for shit, and no it's not all the Californians.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Nobody I know would pay a dime for music when they can get other music, just as good, for free
I pay for music because I want two things:
1) The best possible quality of recording (i.e. not compressed).
2) The artists to be able to afford to make more great music.
Sure I could avoid paying $10 for that CD I really like, but I (unlike, it seems, many people) can see a little beyond the immediate present and want to ensure that the artist is able to make more like it. I know lots of musicians and others in the music business, and I know how much time and effort goes into creating something great. It's not something you can do on the weekend while working a regular job, so cut the cashflow and you make it impossible for them to record the music in the first place. That would be a huge tragedy in my opinion.
Mozart was paid to write music, as were Lennon, Cobain and Elvis - it's always been this way. It's not just music - authors, painters, film makers, dancers, scholars. They all enrich our lives and our culture but can only survive and reach the peak of their potential if they are financially supported by their work. Those who would let their own short sighted greed destroy that are the real enemies here, IMHO.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the current way of doing things is perfect, and I'm fully behind the university in this story in not giving way to these rather vague requests, but I strongly believe that making and recording music is a valuable activity and should be supported - not destroyed.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
I've always had difficulty picking a side in this fight- On the one hand, we have the big, greedy, and deceitful RIAA, but it's not as if the file-sharers are paragons of virtue- I see them both as parasites on the back of the people who actually create things. Still, I'm counting on you (and others like you) to limit the damage the RIAA can do to fair use, privacy, and freedom of expression- not to mention all the innocents they sue along with the guilty. All these things are more valuable than my intellectual property rights. Good luck!
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
If the U of O uses the Resnet system I think it does, this should really read "Windows or not Windows." At my university there is a "CAT" (client assessment tool) that scans Windows and forces one to install the latest Symantec AV and XP SP2 patches (that's right, only XP can run on the network). If you're using any OS but Windows you get to skip this. I know this because I tried to register using my XP image in VMWare and got the CAT forced on me, but was able to plug right in and register under my main OS (Gentoo).
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I can assure you that for a Beaver fan to say "GO DUCKS", the Ducks must be playing a team ahead of the Beavers in the standings.
And vice-versa as well.
firing five shots from a sixteen guage shotgun at it and you bleed to death,
When talking about shotguns, pick from 8, 10, 12, 20, 410 - and the smaller the number the larger the gun ("gauge" (I mis-spell it all the time, too) was an old English shot measure - basically the number of balls you could make from a pound of lead). Oh, and 410's actually a different kind of measure (not gauge) but none-the-less is still smaller than 20) - and 8GA guns are really really rare (I've only seen a black powder one)
Just looking to help out for the next time you make a rhetorical point involving shotguns...
You, of course, write your CV in the same way - because God forbid that you might end up working for "brittle inflexible minds"? Oh, you don't?
This is the first time I've heard of a DDoS attack using the legal system instead of the internet...
Riaa about to go the way of the Northern Spotted Owl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Spotted_Owl if a tree falls on an RIAA lawyer in the forest... does anyone care?
Having known people that worked in the very IT department that received these letters i can say they obviously know who it was.
It doesn't matter whether the IT people know, it matters whether they're following an appropriate policy on the disclosure of information about the students. Lawyers and PIs on TV sweet-talk (I mean, social engineer) information out of bureaucrats all the time, and in the context of the TV show you're identifying with the investigator and you approve of the result. In the context of real life this kind of stuff can get the bureaucrats into all kinds of hot water... including legal hot water.
And it doesn't matter whether the organization or individual trying to get personal information is a "good" guy or a "bad" guy. And it doesn't matter whether the target of the investigation is a "good" guy or a "bad" guy. It's inappropriate for colleges (or for libraries, or bookstores, or grocery stores, or banks, or any other organization) to promiscuously reveal private information.
In fact, I think it might be worthwhile seeing if there's legal recourse for the people whose information has been inappropriately revealed in pervious cases. A new kind of class action suit.