Slashdot Mirror
Marshall University Challenges RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Marshall University, in Huntington, West Virginia, has become just the second US college or university to show the moxie to stand up for its students instead of instantly caving in to RIAA extortion. In February, Marshall, represented by the Attorney General of the State of West Virginia, made a motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena for student identities, pointing out in exquisite detail in its long-time IT guy's affidavit (PDF) the impossibility of identifying copyright 'infringers' based on the RIAA's meager evidence. Unfortunately, the Magistrate — under the mistaken impression that the RIAA isn't going to sue the identified students, but merely wants to talk to them — recommended that the subpoena be okayed by the District Judge (PDF). It is not yet known whether Marshall will be filing objections. The first US college or university known to have attacked the RIAA's subpoena was the University of Oregon, which — also represented by its state's Attorney General — made a motion to quash last November, and even questioned the legality of the RIAA's methods. The Oregon motion is still pending."
I'd want to see a movie that was counter RIAA. Then I reread it as moxie :(
God spoke to me.
Unless I have missed something, the magistrate judge's opinion is not based on the idea that the RIAA "merely wants to talk to" the students. Where does it say that?
Curiously, the magistrate judge's opinion does not even address the central issue, of whether the RIAA's evidence is sufficient to support the subpoena. It is devoted entirely to the question of whether the subpoena imposes an excessive burden on the university. His ruling that the university's burden is not great because it is merely required to produced the names of the students associated with the IP addresses, not to determine who was using the machines at the times of the alleged infringement,appears to be correct.
Where's NewYorkCountyLawyer? FTFANice touch man.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
c'mon, you should stand up collectively and fight. Us canadians can't do everything for you - it is hard enough supplying you with 50% of the pirated movies that are out there (according to the RIAA... that is) and hosting all your non-european trackers.
"...under the mistaken impression that the RIAA isn't going to sue the identified students, but merely wants to talk to them..."
What an idiotic impression. Even if it was a correct impression (how anyone who's done a hint of research on the situation could have that impression is beyond me...), I'd like to think that legal officials would discourage people from using the legal system as their publicly funded 411 service. This whole situation (the RIAA lawsuits as a whole) blows my mind more and more every day and not just because of how moronic the RIAA are. Sadly, they aren't the only idiots running around...
There is no way that the Magistrate actually believes that the RIAA does not intend to sue these students. No reasonable individual could possibly look at the recent history and believe that they had any intentions other than to demand a large settlement or to sue for even larger damage claims. If the Magistrate believes otherwise, their ability to perform their job should be brought into question.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
WE ARE
MARSHALL
While what you say does hold some truth (former music pirate here, who's reverted back to purchasing music), the matter is more the extortion-like tactics the RIAA uses to make the US Justice System their own personal marionettes. It shouldn't be allowed, but I suspect politicians would rather enjoy the money that lobbyist groups give them than to stand up for what is right.
That's American Politics in a nutshell.
Thieves take without the owners' permission. Your "pirates" are uploading content they PAID for - exactly the opposiute of stealing. They're not breaking the law by taking, they're breaking the law by giving. In no way can copyright infringers be called "thieves".
A music thief is someone who steals CDs from Best Buy. A music thief is also someone who scams a recording artist he's signed a contract with out of all his royalties, like the music industry has done time and again.
Which label do you work for again, Mr. Cpward? Sony-BMG? If so, there's a special place in hell for you.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
this riaa charade is letting every potential student worldwide know what university in u.s. is quality, what is university is dipshit when it comes to tradition, heritage and morals.
Read radical news here
But then there's this:
absent the identifying information from the university, plaintiffs simply cannot proceed with their lawsuit, establishes to the Court's satisfaction that Marshall University's obligation under the subpoena is not unduly burdensome.
That seems to make no logical sense at all. The judge seems to be saying that if Plaintiffs cannot proceed with their case otherwise, then there is no such thing as a subpoena that's too burdensome on non-party Marshall University.
Is this judge out of his freaking mind!!!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
First of all, they may not have paid for the content. It's quite likely that they uploaded the content that they themselves downloaded.
Second, while I dislike the comparison of copyright infringement to thievery, it is nonetheless illegal. It is likely less immoral, but that's not a judgement call that the government should be making.
It's already been shown, the RIAA will even sue those who have not downloaded music illegally, just for the press coverage titles of "RIAA sues file sharer" in an overt process of "fearing" people into stopping. I believe that's a definition of terrorism. Where's GWB when you need him?
And the punishment (fines) for stealing that physical CD from Best Buy is one to several hundred times less than the statutory damages asked for and allowed under law ($750 to $150,000 PER TRACK) for online copyright infringement. Tell me how that makes any sense!
And the recording industry is lobbying hard to RAISE those statutory damage limits EVEN HIGHER.
I'm sorry, but they have an overly exaggerated view of the true value of their product.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm just saying that were I to get sued by the RIAA a year ago, I'd have been guilty. Now I have cleaned up my act... Helps though that the majority of music I download comes from Europe so I have a small percentage of files from an RIAA label, nor did I ever upload music, nor do I purchase music from RIAA labels (unless the album is worth it). That way I can breathe a little bit easier in this case.
My brother at university got a letter from the university staff about downloading, apparently somebody tracked it to him, but he only had to clean it off his hard drive to be clear, so I don't think it was the RIAA's usual strong-arm henchmen Media Defender who sent the letter...
Anyways, GWB is a terrorist himself. 'Nuff said.
Well, just watch this one. You don't need parodies if the original is already making you laugh hard.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
... and RIAA's lawyers howl "Meat! Meat!".
FTFA:
... that compliance ... would impose an undue burden on its limited resources. A significant part of this burden, however, stems from a mistaken belief that the University was required to determine who was âoeusing a given computer at a given time.â By ... making it clear that they seek only identifying information with respect to the person associated with the IP address at the date and time of the alleged infringing use, the perceived burden should be considerably reduced.
Marshall argues
Exactly how is finding "the person associated with [an] IP address at [a] date and time" different from determining who was "using a given computer at a given time"? Assuming a DHCP environment, I can see how it would be more difficult to start with a physical computer and trace back to a person, but I can't see how Marshall could have understood "computer" as anything but "IP".
Eat lots of calcium! You might develop a backbone!
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
The subpeona is to get the name the of the person owning the car. However it doesn't prove who was driving it.
Also to note, that having the make, model, colour and license plate of the car doesn't actually mean the car belonged to someone or was in fact real. In fact, it could have all been faked.
As well, at this point in time they can't in fact prove the pedestrian was actually hit, or if he suffered damages. Although that would be the point of a trial.
you know the RIAA is in trouble when elected politicians want to take them on.
I thought iTunes already solved the RIAA's problem. Yet, they continue to throw away money on this crap. But then, I suppose they have to justify their obscene percentage margins taken from the 'artists.'
I remember reading an article about Round Robin DNS setup as a way of combatting DOS attacks. This seems to be a similar thing on a much bigger scale.
http://projectleader.wordpress.com
The point really is that if IP != Individual, then Internet = Consequences Free Zone. Period.
If you can't connect a "person" with an "action" in any way, then "actions" have no consequences any longer. You can use all the hand-waving you want, but that is what it comes down to. Either someone is responsible, or nobody is.
Today, ISPs shielding customers means pretty much that nobody is ever responsible. Unless you brag or otherwise spill the beans, whatever you do online can never be traced to a person, just an IP address. There was somewhat of a tacit understanding that IP == Account == Person for a while but that seems to be over now. Now it is IP == Forgible MAC == ????
So where does that get us? Well, for many it means free music, movies and software. For others it means the ability to extort, threaten and destroy lives. Another group can exploit whatever technical or social gaps there may be to take over computers worldwide. All without consequences because there is no provable link between an IP address and a person. And utterly no responsibility for the use of services by an "account holder". I see this every day and there doesn't seem to be any legal, moral or other alternative here.
It does mean that DRM is king and "security" is whatever you can purchase - because the people with the time available cannot be stopped from attacking servers, people and services.
I attend the University of Massachusetts - Lowell as a grad student and got this in my e-mail about 4 hours ago. I'm not worried as I haven't lived on campus for 2 years, and didn't share any music because the network was prohibitively slow. However, it looks like Umass isn't going to grow a pair and fight it. Just rollover and give names.
E-mail is as follows:
Students,
Be advised that the University has recently received several copyright infringement notices from the RIAA and SafeNet DMCA.
Each individual RIAA notice states an account on the University network âoewas used to reproduce and/or distribute unauthorized copies of one or more copyrighted sound recordings.â The notice provides details of the infringement and warns âoethis network user may be liable for the infringing activity occurring on your network... This letter does not constitute a waiver of any right to recover damages incurred by virtue of any such unauthorized activities, and such rights as well as claims for other relief are expressly retained. Moreover, this letter does not constitute a waiver of our members' right to sue the user at issue for copyright infringement.â
The notice also encourages the user to visit the MUSIC Coalitionâ(TM)s website at www.musicunited.org.
The SafeNet DMCA notices are similar in nature.
Details provided within the notices will be used to identify students for further action.
All students should discontinue the sharing/copying/downloading of copyrighted material. Safe and legal access to digital music and movies is available through Ruckus.
The IT Guy (Jan Fox) is a woman.
http://users.marshall.edu/~fox/
I downloaded Madonna's new album today!
Got it a week before its official release, and for free! Bet that burns your toast, huh, RIAA?
...and that's all that Mathers!
Excellent, so you suggest that jailtime is appropriate for file-sharers? Or perhaps that shoplifting should be punishable by statutory damages of $150,000 per act?
The thing is, shoplifting and copyright infringement are very different- copyright infringement isn't a crime, to start with. The punishments should be different, and the punishments for copyright infringement can be only monetary and equitable relief.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Do current music artists get a corporate discount?
Would the RIAA sue it's own members?
The RIAA should sue itself for being this stupid.
---
My html sucks and I don't give a damn.
That's a pretty big stretch from what I said.
Sincerely,
B.L. Zebub
First of all, they may not have paid for the content. It's quite likely that they uploaded the content that they themselves downloaded.
Somebody bought a copy and uploaded it. If they downloaded it and then uploaded it then it's already there.
Second, while I dislike the comparison of copyright infringement to thievery, it is nonetheless illegal.
So is rape, but I don't think you would say that copyright infringement is rape.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The thing is, shoplifting and copyright infringement are very different
BINGO! Like I said (and like I believe the comment between yours and mine said), copyright infringement isn't stealing, and the penalties are way out of whack; a small fine or community service for shoplifting (although repeat offenders will see the inside of a jail) for the criminal act of stealing, vs tens of thousands in civil costs for copyright infringement.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Wow it is. And he has mod points too!
Now mod this one troll as well.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
While you may have said essentially the same thing as I did, I think you misinterpreted my reason for saying it.
Civil copyright infringement, by necessity, can only provide for equitable and monetary relief; that is, the court can only order that the infringer stop or pay fines (or both).
However, that said, in many ways, civil copyright infringement can be far more damaging than mere theft. Theft of a CD is a fairly minimal occurrence which perhaps costs the store in direct costs ten dollars; copyright infringement of a massive scale (like the massive DVD pirating efforts and efforts to pirate Microsoft Windows in the third world) is a much larger operation with much higher associated costs. It is fairly reasonable, therefore, that there would be more significant punishments added onto it.
Essentially, copyright infringement covers a much, much wider spectrum of illegality and damages done than theft under $5000. That is the reason for the quantum of damages being set the way it is.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance