Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music Privacy News Your Rights Online

U.of Oregon Says No to RIAA 241

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'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.of Oregon Says No to RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • If this works... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bobdotorg ( 598873 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @09:01AM (#21211059)
    ... I'm interested to see how will subsequent rulings will affect the 'unsecured wireless defense'.
    • Re:If this works... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by QuantumRiff ( 120817 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @09:30AM (#21211475)
      UofO doesn't have unsecured wireless. They have a captive portal that requires you to login. Their argument for the wireless is that they can't tell if the person logging in is the same person as the one that is using the computer.. (IE, you give your GF your laptop and password for the day). In fact, with the issues cropping up from the CALEA act, (can't remember the exact spelling this early in the morning) schools can soon get in trouble for not authenticating their wireless, in case terrorists want to use it. No joke, thats what the feds say!! Most of the schools are pretty ticked about that act, since it opens up all sorts of possibilities for abuse, like this story.

      PS.. GO DUCKS!
      • As we understand it, CALEA doesn't apply to us (a state university), and therefore we have no obligation to do anything in response to CALEA, other than exercise normal due diligence. Which isn't, when you get into it, a whole lot.

        Who CALEA applies to is our ISP, not us. This is what the law says and what our ISP says; they don't want us doing it, they want to handle it. Therefore, we can have ethernet jacks that anyone can plug into and use (though they're outside our firewall). You have to have an ID to

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        In Italy, hotels, internet cafes, etc are required to get your passport before letting you log in. Again - this is supposedly in case the terrorists get access to the internet.

        I felt sooo much safer knowing that it was impossible in Italy for terrorists to see lolcats. I guess the system is watertight - otherwise I'm sure they wouldn't be putting all us legitimate non-terrorist types to such inconvenince.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          Well of course. Everyone knows that lolcats is a famous terrorist haunt simply by looking at all the secret messages steganographically encoded in the cute-ickle-puddy pictures.

  • Rule 45? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mazarin5 ( 309432 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @09:02AM (#21211083) Journal
    Rule 45 is fine and all, but what about Rule 34?
  • 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.
    • by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @10:22AM (#21212293) Journal
      No, nowhere near the beginning. The RIAA labels' suicide started years ago and is still ongoing. Now, if you're scratching your heads and are wondering WTF I mean by "suicide", the established industry is dying from its own actions.

      The year the old "pirate" Napster was being sued, CD sales (IIRC) were at their peak and have been dwindling since. The RIAA boycott (that you have never even once heard about in the mainstream media - hmmm....) must have had some slight effect on the industry.

      Their first mistake was to think CD burning technology wouldn't, like all computer technology before it, be affordable for the serfs.

      Their second mistake was to try to kill their competetion, the indies, by killing P2P.

      Their third mistake was seeing MP3s as "product" rather than "advertising". They have always been known as "record companies", and they sold records. Now they're trying to sell music, and music is a non-tangible item. Note that the indies actually do this, giving away MP3s and selling CDs at their shows.

      There were other mistakes - overpricing their wares (an indie CD is usually $5-$10), only having one good song on the CD (my generatiuon was damned lucky, have you ever heard a Led Zepplin song that sucked? There aren't any!), suing their paying customers (DUH!!!!!!) etc.

      All their woes are self-inflicted. Now by "suicide" I'm assuming that you'll agree that if a mosquito lands on your foot and you try to kill the mosquito by firing five shots from a sixteen guage shotgun at it and you bleed to death, it's suicide.

      -mcgrew [mcgrew.info]
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DarkSarin ( 651985 )
        I'm sorry, but while Led Zeppelin is good (I'm sure not going to argue), there are a certain percentage of their songs that I am convinced one must be stoned/high/drunk/etc in order to enjoy them properly. Since I am an abstainer, I don't really ever enjoy those songs. Not that they are bad songs, but they are not as good as the rest to those of us who don't use drugs of any type other than medicinal purposes.

        The rest of your argument is unaffected by this, however, and I agree.

        The RIAA is obselete on abo
        • "...those of us who don't use drugs of any type other than medicinal purposes."

          Or some of us just have a broader definition of what constitutes a medicinal purpose.

    • 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.

      I would suspect that the RIAA would simply just try to have the law changed, or have new ones created to close any loop-holes. I think this is a distinct possibility given how consumer interests and individual rights often take a back seat to federal or corporate interests when making laws. The DMCA is the most obvious example. And the riddance of the Net neutrality law is the most recent example. In Canada we are expected to sign into law pro-CRIA legislation within the next few months thanks to lobbying

  • 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.
    • IANAL, but I don't think you can sue "suspects". You need to identify the person or entity you're suing. If you could sue suspects, the RIAA could just sue every college student.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 02, 2007 @09:23AM (#21211365)
      Wow, many people don't RTFA and get slammed for it, sounds like you didn't read anything except the headline!

      Even the summary clearly indicates that the only thing the University can state with any accuracy is the room that was used, and whether the computer was a PC or a MAC.

      This in no-way limits the pool of potential "defendants" to two, (which was also stated in the summary), it simply says that it could have been on-or-the-other of the two room-mates, or any guest they may have ever had, or anyone else who may have had access to the room (i.e. janitorial staff, friends, friends' friends, party guests, etc.).

      The University seems to be essentially saying that the scope of the investigation that they would have to undertake in order to comply with the subpoena exceeds the burden the litigant is (or should be?) permitted to impose on them.

      -AC
      • This in no-way limits the pool of potential "defendants" to two, (which was also stated in the summary), it simply says that it could have been on-or-the-other of the two room-mates, or any guest they may have ever had, or anyone else who may have had access to the room (i.e. janitorial staff, friends, friends' friends, party guests, etc.).

        I got in trouble with my university for trolling an IRC chat room. (Chat roomed admin called my ISP.) They traced it to my internet connection.

        TRUST ME, the "roommate, ja
        • And what authority do you have for your statement? You cannot point to a single case.
    • by jbwolfe ( 241413 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @09:31AM (#21211489) Homepage
      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.
      • 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.
        • 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 scar
          • Becuase you didn't read the rest of it - that the university cannot say it was only the users in that dorm room that accessed it, it still leaves all potnetial visitors, cleaning staff etc who may have done somehting. It still does not reduce the poool of people by any reasonable amount....
            • I dunno about that one, if entrances are logged into dorms (and dorm rooms?) via key card or similar technology, a through investigation can reveal a few hundred people who swiped the card in the dorm and a few at best who swiped the card in the dorm room. That still leaves a few but with other corroborating evidence you might be able to pinpoint someone. Still for the RIAA to do this, it goes far past the point of diminishing returns, but the RIAA has been good at doing just that...
            • 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 access

              • 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.
                • OK, maybe I'm out of my legal depth here, but let me propose a dubious analogy (recognising that obviously we're not talking about a life-and-death criminal case here). If a murder has been committed, and a smoking gun has been found, and there is forensic evidence on that gun that would strongly suggest a certain individual used the weapon in the recent past (though it might not have been the shot that killed the victim in this case), and a known source has information that links that forensic clue to the

  • by ACK!! ( 10229 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @09:13AM (#21211245) Journal
    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?
  • by Daffy Duck ( 17350 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @09:15AM (#21211263) Homepage
    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.
    • No. If they take down material and neglect to take "reasonable steps to notify the subscriber" (i.e., the person who posted the material in the first place), they lose the legal protection against any damages that the takedown causes to the subscriber. The RIAA would not benefit from this even if the university never notified anybody of a DMCA takedown.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Gravatron ( 716477 )
      Unless the person lives alone, has a completely secured wireless/wired connection, is free of bots, trojons, and a thousand other things, you can never be entirely sure who was using the machine. It's a fundlemental failing of the law, IMHO, which is a result of bad lobbying, and a lack of technical understanding by those who passed the law.
      • You forgot guests. The RIAA should also have to provide evidence that it is unlikely that someone else touched this locked down computer.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JoelKatz ( 46478 )
      > 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?

      Short answer, "no".

      Slightly longer answer, many services can't do that. Requiring them to would place an impossible burden on anonymous speech.
    • by cdrguru ( 88047 )
      You are confusing hosting with an Internet connection. As far as I know, nobody has ever been served with a DMCA violation because of something they were doing with their own computer. Like sending email to someone.

      DMCA doesn't apply, really. What would you "take down"?

      Besides, as others point out, there is no law here. Nothing.
    • by peacefinder ( 469349 ) <alan.dewittNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday November 02, 2007 @03:16PM (#21216911) Journal
      "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.
  • 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
    • 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.

      3. The Capitol v. Thomas case is far from over.
      • 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?
        • by cdrguru ( 88047 )
          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. T
      • frankly, i admire you, i admire your work. i don't want you to think that i think your efforts are useless in the end. i am very glad you are there fighting this good fight, and it does have meaning in the end

        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 an
        • 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.
          • 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! ;-)

    • by Xeth ( 614132 )
      This is a fallacy known as "reasoning by analogy". While, yes, an unfunded RIAA is a powerless RIAA, there very well may be other ways to effect the desired changes in the world. Ancient ecosystems have very different rules from the modern legal system, and you shouldn't expect them to behave in the same way.
      • "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 rhe
      • 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.
  • by VoxMagis ( 1036530 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @09:30AM (#21211467)
    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.
  • IP Trace subpoena (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Christoph ( 17845 ) <chris@cgstock.com> on Friday November 02, 2007 @09:34AM (#21211545) Homepage Journal

    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!")

    • Maybe all the students in the dorm could each claim they were the guilty party? ("I'm Sparticus!")

      The RIAA would just take that as admission of guilt and sue each one of them seperately for their lifetime total income + damages.

    • Maybe all the students in the dorm could each claim they were the guilty party? ("I'm Sparticus!")

      I like the idea. Even better, I like the idea that all MAC address belong to some Linksys router or another in the dorm. Beyond NAT, it could be anyone.
    • Maybe all the students in the dorm could each claim they were the guilty party? ("I'm Sparticus!")

      As I recall, the slaves who tried that in the Third Servile War [wikipedia.org] were all killed anyway for their trouble. Perhaps not the best example to follow.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      IANAL, but nonetheless, I think you're got the wrong idea here...

      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.

      From the fine document:

      On September 17, 2007, Plaintiffs served the University of Oregon ("University") with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, commanding the University to produce

  • Go Ducks!

    It's about time someone fought back. UofO has the backing of Phil Knight [wikipedia.org] (founder of Nike), so there should be plenty of money to fight off the RIAA should things get ugly.

  • by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Friday November 02, 2007 @10:01AM (#21211927)
    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.
    • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @10:55AM (#21212889)
      growing up in the 70's and 80's I remember radio stations having special 'whole album sides' plays. they'd even give you a count-down before they started the first uninterrupted track.

      can't get much more blatant than THAT, can you?

      if it was ok then - and the sony/betamax case already established our right to make personal copies of 'media' - what's changed?

      what's changed is that media companies see the signaling of the end for their business model. they see they have 5-10 yrs left, if even that. they are trying to milk the system for all its worth, ONE final time.

    • by Tuoqui ( 1091447 )
      You'd be considered a criminal for doing the same anyways. Look at Florida if you want to sell a used CD to a shop they gotta get your drivers license and ID and stuff and hold things for 10 days before stocking it on shelves, etc... because of some dumb law the RIAA got put in.

      Its because they want to be the point of sale for EVERY copy forever and ever. Dont think if they could get away with it with DRM and crap that they wouldnt try making you buy the same song for your computer, your iPod, Your Stereo,
    • by Xentor ( 600436 )
      The RIAA-approved answer:

      Because now, with everything digital, a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy is as perfect as the original. Back then, there was a limit to how much you could copy before the quality was so low that no one would want it.

      The real answer:

      The MAFIAA realizes that their days are numbered, thanks to the Intarwebs (Tubes, , etc), and found enough congressmen and lawyers, and made them an offer they couldn't refuse.
    • by cdrguru ( 88047 )
      A tape off the radio or from a CD was (a) not permanent and (b) not all that great. Today we have perfect digital copies that are every bit as good as the original. There is no need to buy the CD when you have the copy, no need whatsoever.

      Anyone using the "try before buy" argument is lying or stupid and wasting their money. Nobody is buying CDs if they are downloading they very same music. Who is buying CDs today? The people without broadband Internet connections because downloading is too slow over di
  • by JoeCommodore ( 567479 ) <larry@portcommodore.com> on Friday November 02, 2007 @10:15AM (#21212143) Homepage
    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.
  • GO DUCKS! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Richard.Tao ( 1150683 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @10:15AM (#21212153)
    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.
    • Re:GO DUCKS! (Score:5, Informative)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <ray@NOsPAm.beckermanlegal.com> on Friday November 02, 2007 @10:27AM (#21212379) Homepage Journal

      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

      -they are in effect sticking up for ALL of us.
      • I'm sorry, Ray, but I just don't see how any reasonable, impartial person could accept the arguments you make here.

        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".

        If you know with reasonable certainty which computer was used to commit an infringement, that is evidence that its owner was responsible. It's certainly not conclusive evidence, and it might turn out to be evidence that someone else did it instead, but it's evidence all the same.

        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".

        And how are they supposed to conduct an "appropriate" investigation themselves if the University can withhold k

      • by cdrguru ( 88047 )
        Yeah, but... there are two possible ways to look at this. Either you are saying the RIAA has no right to enforce copyright or you are saying there is a different way to pursue an investigation that they have failed to do. I suspect you are saying the first, which is a pretty far out stance for someone claiming to be a lawyer.

        I would offer that the RIAA has all the evidence that can be obtained without acquiring evidence from computers. If there is no evidence there - when their investigation has determin
  • 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
  • by peacefinder ( 469349 ) <alan.dewittNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday November 02, 2007 @10:30AM (#21212437) Journal
    "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 [uoregon.edu] 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.
  • by MikeCav ( 914861 )
    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 [rpi.edu]
  • If all the "evidence" is revealed at this stage (I didn't see KaZaA screen names in the papers listed, although they should be available in the (possibly faked) screen shots), it should be possible to determine if the RIAA has any case at all this early in the proceedings. Perhaps they can just be kicked out now due to lack of evidence, saving everyone else a whole lot of money, and the RIAA a whole lot of publicity.

    This is the first time that I've seen where someone, most surprisingly an actual non-part

    • 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.

  • Woohoo! Makes me feel good to be a duck!
  • 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 t
  • Anonymity good? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @12:38PM (#21214493) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • RIAA free sticker (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jeffeb3 ( 1036434 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @01:43PM (#21215519)
    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.

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Working...