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."

Comments

Re:Hunh?

[corsec67]

What about University provided wifi?

At the University I went to, CU, the wifi was unsecured, aside from the MAC address check. Yes, I did have to register the MAC to me, but then the MAC address was broadcast in the open, and could easily be spoofed, which I have used in the past.

Agreed that over wired ethernet, it is much easier to prevent MAC spoofing, but what about wifi?

Re:Go WVa

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

That's "Country". And what do you mean, where is he? He's what we like to call "the submitter". Thank you, LMacG.

What did you think of the IT guy's affidavit? I felt it was a model of clarity, explaining to the judge that the RIAA doesn't have a case against these kids. The IT guy at the University of Arizona did a good job on that same issue but the school, like idiots, just caved in and turned over the information, ignoring the motion to quash which one of the students had filed.

Re:I Don't Get It

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

1. The subpoena asked for the identity of the infringers.

2. The university argued it can't identify the infringers, and spelled out in the IT guy's affidavit why it's impossible, without conducting an elaborate investigation.

3. The magistrate ruled 'they're not asking you for the identities of the infringers', they just want to know who's associated with the IP address.

4. He is apparently unaware of the RIAA equation, "whoever is associated with the IP address" = "the defendant" = "the infringer". He is assuming the RIAA lawyers conduct themselves like real lawyers.