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.
Soundtrack available through...oh, wait...
Blank until
Who says that an IP address can even be related to a specific computer, much less a person?
All the university would know is that something with a specific MAC address was using that IP at that specific time.
Since MAC addresses are spoofable, how can they be related to a specific person at all?
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Speaking of movies... modified quote:
Lower ranking RIAA lawyer: Oh no! The college students are revolting!
Higher ranking RIAA lawyer: We already know this.
What day is it? Could you please tell me?
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.
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
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful