If I were an RIAA shark, I'd smell blood in the water." Well, yes. But the question is, whose blood?
As I said elsewhere, the U.O. President is a former dean of the U.O. Law School, and a former Attorney General of the State of Oregon. His university bio says he argued seven cases before the US Supreme Court as state AG and won six, and goes on to say that's more cases and a better record than any other contemporary State A.G. Its almost impossible to imagine that the University took this step without consulting him, and it's equally difficult to imagine he's misjudged the strength of their case or that he's afraid to take it all the way to the US Supreme Court.
I think the RIAA's sharks have just bitten a much bigger shark. If they aren't looking for a way to swim away quietly, they're in for a hell of a fight. Great post. I'd mod you up to +5.
I think the RIAA "sharks" are in a state of shock at the moment.
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.
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".
It's not the RIAA that's doing this, it's 4 large record companies who are hiding behind the RIAA as a way of concealing their antitrust law-prohibited conduct. I have never seen any plaintiff who is not a label owned by the big 4. There are hundreds of other record companies who are RIAA members who have not been a part of any of these lawsuits. If I were an RIAA member I would be asking law enforcement authorities to investigate.
You have to have evidence that the person you're suing has committed the copyright infringement before the Court can permit discovery of his identity information. As Oregon's AG pointed out, the RIAA doesn't have such evidence.
The law is that you are not entitled to identity information unless and until you can prove by competent evidence, in admissible form, a prima facie case against the person whose identity you are seeking.
I can't imagine why you would think there's anything unfair about such a legal principle. If you were named in a lawsuit because you were one of many possible people who had committed the complained-of tort, I'd think you'd understand the irrationality of the argument you are presently making.
Except you're overlooking the fact that under the law the RIAA is not entitled to the identity information unless it has evidence, in a form that would be admissible at trial, sufficient to established that the "John Doe" whose identity is being sought has infringed the plaintiffs' copyrights. And the AG is so delicately and so accurately pointing out that the evidence does not so indicate.
An amazing read. Does the U.O. have a Pre-Vet program there? If so, I think my eldest would get a better education there. I find myself troubled by schools that prefer to chant the current party line as opposed to using thought and reasoning. Thought and reasoning are not always the optimal course of action, but it is a better action than one that requires switching off the brain in order to perform. I happen to agree with you. I would not want to attend or have my child attend a school that is willing to relinquish its students' civil liberties, as some other colleges and universities have done. I think this motion speaks well for the University of Oregon as an institution that values critical thinking. And I think it speaks well for the Oregon Attorney General that people in his office actually read the law books, and then enforce the law, and are not cowed by a few large corporations.
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? Good points, Nom.
It will be amusing to see what kind of response the RIAA's lapdogs -- er, lawyers -- can cobble together, since the AG's motion is based on facts which the RIAA's own witnesses have admitted under oath.
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.
I have been expecting the pendulum to swing the other way In reality the pendulum had not swung in the RIAA's direction, it just seemed that way because almost no one was fighting back. Our adversary system of justice requires adversaries. The only difference now is that more people are fighting back. I think the RIAA made a big mistake taking on colleges and universities.
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. Yeah, but if you read the litigation documents carefully you'll see they ARE sticking up for the students' rights. They're saying "we're not going to give you someone's name if you don't have evidence that that person did in fact commit a copyright infringement".
When they say "this subpoena would require us to conduct an investigation" they are in effect saying "the RIAA hasn't conducted an appropriate investigation".
In fact, I'll go one step further: when they point out to the Court that the RIAA's evidence doesn't point to a copyright infringer,
-they are saying something that is fully applicable to all of the RIAA's lawsuits, both those against college students and those against the general populace,
-they are only saying what the RIAA has admitted under oath at the Capitol v. Thomas trial and in the deposition of Dr. Jacobson in UMG v. Lindor, and
I think the issue all along has been that IP addresses are not persons. Yes, you can argue that the address has a responsible person behind it, and perhaps that's all the law cares about. But the RIAA needs to prove the infringing party is the same one who owns the IP address- not trivial. They are asking the ISP or University to decide who that is. All it takes is an uneducated person with an unsecured WAP and a savvy and unscrupulous wardriver and suddenly the ignorant have become copyright infringers. Leave your dorm room open and unattended or be unlucky enough to share an address with a dishonest roommate who points the finger at you could be enough to cause heaps of trouble. You have hit the nail on the head. The RIAA's investigation, at its best, only takes them to the dynamic IP address. That is not "all the law cares about". In copyright infringement, one cannot be held responsible for another's copyright infringement under 'secondary infringement' theory unless one affirmatively induced it.
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 You've got to be kidding.
1. You can't "wait them out" if you're the one that's being sued (or, as in this case, the university that's being put in a position in which it's being forced to violate the law)
2. If you think this motion doesn't have enormous impact, you're wrong.
Many perfectly legal and moral fair uses are either forbidden outright, or falsely claimed to be forbidden.
Forbidden? No.
Falsely claimed to be forbidden? Yes.
It is the content cartel's oppressive wave of frivolous litigation that is most at fault. It needs to be slapped down by alert judges, like Judge Larimer.
OK but the power of a judge, with respect to a jury's findings in a civil case, are different than the powers of a judge with respect to a jury's findings in a criminal case. Just want to make sure that's clear.
More seriously (or less humorously), the headline is offtopic and completely false. Your not having any proof of my wrongdoing is NOT my "getting off on a technicality". You've never robbed a bank, so is your never having been convicted of bank robbery "getting off on a technicality?"
We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It's thinking like this, where lack of evidence of your guilt means you "got off on a technicality", is what's got us heading towards the police state I maintain we are already in. Keep saying stuff like that and you'll never be able to get a job at the RIAA, or with SONY BMG, Warner Bros, EMI, or Vivendi/Universal.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the RIAA "sharks" are in a state of shock at the moment.
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.
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".
If you think the Attorney General of the State of Oregon would be doing this for kicks.... think again.
Thanks, Fish. Sorry I didn't get to meet you in person. I had a nice time in Orono, meeting some really fine folks.
It's not the RIAA that's doing this, it's 4 large record companies who are hiding behind the RIAA as a way of concealing their antitrust law-prohibited conduct. I have never seen any plaintiff who is not a label owned by the big 4. There are hundreds of other record companies who are RIAA members who have not been a part of any of these lawsuits. If I were an RIAA member I would be asking law enforcement authorities to investigate.
You have to have evidence that the person you're suing has committed the copyright infringement before the Court can permit discovery of his identity information. As Oregon's AG pointed out, the RIAA doesn't have such evidence.
Well I'm sorry that you disagree with the law.
The law is that you are not entitled to identity information unless and until you can prove by competent evidence, in admissible form, a prima facie case against the person whose identity you are seeking.
I can't imagine why you would think there's anything unfair about such a legal principle. If you were named in a lawsuit because you were one of many possible people who had committed the complained-of tort, I'd think you'd understand the irrationality of the argument you are presently making.
And what authority do you have for your statement? You cannot point to a single case.
Except you're overlooking the fact that under the law the RIAA is not entitled to the identity information unless it has evidence, in a form that would be admissible at trial, sufficient to established that the "John Doe" whose identity is being sought has infringed the plaintiffs' copyrights. And the AG is so delicately and so accurately pointing out that the evidence does not so indicate.
It will be amusing to see what kind of response the RIAA's lapdogs -- er, lawyers -- can cobble together, since the AG's motion is based on facts which the RIAA's own witnesses have admitted under oath.
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.
When they say "this subpoena would require us to conduct an investigation" they are in effect saying "the RIAA hasn't conducted an appropriate investigation".
In fact, I'll go one step further: when they point out to the Court that the RIAA's evidence doesn't point to a copyright infringer,
-they are saying something that is fully applicable to all of the RIAA's lawsuits, both those against college students and those against the general populace,
-they are only saying what the RIAA has admitted under oath at the Capitol v. Thomas trial and in the deposition of Dr. Jacobson in UMG v. Lindor, and
-they are in effect sticking up for ALL of us.
1. You can't "wait them out" if you're the one that's being sued (or, as in this case, the university that's being put in a position in which it's being forced to violate the law)
2. If you think this motion doesn't have enormous impact, you're wrong.
3. The Capitol v. Thomas case is far from over.
You are correct. Rule 34 is inapplicable.
I commend you, sir.
Hats off.
Forbidden? No.
Falsely claimed to be forbidden? Yes.
It is the content cartel's oppressive wave of frivolous litigation that is most at fault. It needs to be slapped down by alert judges, like Judge Larimer.
Excellent post, by the way.
Okie dokie. Too bad they closed the last thread.
OK but the power of a judge, with respect to a jury's findings in a civil case, are different than the powers of a judge with respect to a jury's findings in a criminal case. Just want to make sure that's clear.
I don't really get why you're talking about acquittals and convictions. This is a civil, not a criminal, case.