As reported by Tony Green in The Oregonian:
In Arista v. Does 1-17, a new ex parte case to get discovery from the University of Oregon about the identities of its students, the Oregon Department of Justice has made a motion, on behalf of the University of Oregon, to quash the subpoena obtained by the RIAA.
This is the first such motion of which we are aware that has been made by the university itself, rather than by the students.
It is also the first instance of which we are aware of a State Attorney General bringing a motion to quash an RIAA subpoena.
The motion papers of the Attorney General argue that it is impossible to identify the alleged infringers from the information the RIAA has presented:
7. [We] have attempted to identify all seventeen alleged infringers and have been unable to do so.Accordingly, the AG concludes,
8. 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 wis accessed and whether or not the computer used was a Macintosh or a PC. No login or personally identifiable information, i.e. authentication, was used by the Does to access the University's network because none is required. 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.
9. Two of the seventeen John Does accessed the content in question fiom single occupancy dorm rooms at the University. No login or personally identifiable information, i.e. authentication, was used by the Does to access the university's network because none is required. The University cannot determine whether the content was accessed by the room occupant or visitor.
10. Nine of the seventeen John Does accessed the content in question from the University's wireless network or a similar system called the "HDSL Circuit." These systems do record a user name associated with the access. For these John Does, the University can determine the identity of the individual who bas been assigned the user name, however, it is unable to determine whether the content was accessed by the individual assigned that user name or by someone else using the computer associated with the user name.
11. In the case of sixteen of the seventeen John Does, I believe it is not possible for the University to identify the alleged infringers without conducting interviews and a forensic investigation of the computers likely involved.
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. Plaintiffs' subpoena is additionally invalid because Congress intended Plaintiffs to use the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the information they seek, not Rule 45. Lastly, the University should be allowed access to Plaintiffs through interrogatories and depositions to determine whether Plaintiffs have additional information with which to identifyThe University of Oregon is represented by the Attorney General of the State of Oregon.
Defendants. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' subpoena should be quashed.
University of Oregon's Motion to Quash*
University of Oregon's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Quash*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Commentary & discussion:
Associated Press (via Seattle Times)
Mashable Social Networking News
Digital Media Wire
Electronic Frontier Foundation
The Stranger (LineOut)
Inside Higher Ed
Oregon Daily Emerald
Cornell Blog: An unofficial blog about Cornell University
New York Times (log-in required)
Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs