Wednesday, November 14, 2007

RIAA Opposes Motion by Oregon Attorney General

Thanks to Tony Green of The Oregonian for making me aware of this filing:

In Arista v. Does 1-17, the Portland, Oregon, case in which the Attorney General of the State of Oregon has made a motion, on behalf of the University of Oregon, to quash the RIAA's "John Doe" subpoena, the RIAA has filed papers opposing the motion.

RIAA's opposition to motion to quash*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

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






5 comments:

Jadeic said...

Once again it takes the RIAA some 16 pages of twaddle to basically whine that unless you give us our ball back we can't take part in the game.

Anonymous said...

The RIAA here just wants names to pursue. They obviously don't care if they are the right names, or not, or how much trouble they may put anyone else through in the process – including the University itself.

No evidence that the infringement has stopped. Neither is there any indication that it continued one second past the time they took the screen snapshots of some unknown person's computer.

This Court should reject the University’s effort to permit their students to infringe unabated.

And the RIAA should have to play under the rules of the laws as written!

It is entirely possible that it is impossible to prosecute a case against anonymous filesharers under the current laws of the United States. That doesn't mean that the RIAA is allowed to disregard, lie about, and otherwise try to extend those laws in their suits – and its up to the courts and judges to stop this. Just be glad you're in Oregon, instead of Oklahoma today.

Of course the RIAA trots out their old argument that hundreds of universities and dozens of commercial internet service providers have responded to the exact same subpoena without breadth or burden concerns.

And you know something. They've identified a lot of wrong people in the process.

The DMCA is not the sole mechanism for Plaintiffs to subpoena the information they need from the University.

Actually is is, and you (the RIAA) don't like that one little bit. It was included long after Rule 45, and supersedes it. It would have no other reason for existing.

The University is reading into the subpoena a requirement to determine the individual actually operating the computer responsible for the infringement that does not exist.

Clearly the RIAA doesn't care about getting the right person. Only finding some poor college student to extort on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Anonymous said...

The University is reading into the subpoena a requirement to determine the individual
actually operating the computer responsible for the infringement that does not exist.


Wow, after reading this line from PAGE 7 - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FRCP 45(B)(3)(a) BY THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON in conjunction with As set forth above, Plaintiffs
are not asking the University to conduct an investigation sufficient to prove that a specific network user was responsible for the infringement alleged in the Complaint. Rather, Plaintiffs seek only information sufficient to identify the individual or individuals assigned to the IP addresses listed in the subpoena at the date and time of infringement.
one has to wonder if the attorneys at LANE POWELL PC have just conceded (boldly asserted?)that IP addresses are not sufficient to identify the alleged infringers of copyrighted sound recordings.

Ray? BTW, interesting to hear you attended the Bronx High School of Science. Still have the green jacket with the light tan leather sleeves? Those sleeves offered some decent protection when doing a layout on the concrete playground while playing Ultimate. It probably would have hurt less (although not necessarily safer) to play in the grassy field across the street :)

Since one IP address can lead to a room with two occupants, then clearly Carlos Linares' statement
Users of P2P networks can be identified by their IP addresses because each computer or network device (such as a router)that connects to a P2P network must have a unique IP address within the Internet to deliver files from one computer or network device to another. cannot be true. After all, even if his claim that IP addresses must be unique to each computer or network device in order to deliver files from one computer or network device to another were true, the IP address is not unique to an individual. A more accurate and truthful statement would be:

Users of P2P networks cannot be uniquely identified by their IP addresses even if each computer or network device (such as a router)that connects to a P2P network must have a unique IP address within the Internet to deliver files from one computer or network device to another.

Anonymous said...

The RIAA makes a big deal that they are willing to amend their subpoena to reflect that they merely want all the names the University has, even if some of those persons are an innocent roommate.

Wouldnt they also need to amend to add more "John Does" to their case? After all, it appears that they now are saying that they are seeking more names then there are "John Does" in this suit.

Actually, I also wonder why the joining of unrelated cases was not raised. There should be at least 27 cases here. (I am guessing that the joining of the 2 roommates in one case MIGHT be ok)

As to the wireless user names, the Admin for the network states that data is not reliable. As a network admin myself, my guess for the main reason this is so is that maybe the Admin has login records indicating that some of the usernames in the John Doe case were signed in many places on campus at the same time. This would place a serious problem pinning the sharing on that person. Students might choose to share user ids on the network (or they might have have been sniffed out of the air if they are transmitted unencrypted) in order to save money if the campus charges for wireless access. The lawyer for the defense should make a point to make sure that duplicate access to the same username is checked. Also, although dishonest if done to defraud the court, almost every network card has an available utiilty that can re-program the MAC address. I have had to use such utilities in the past, because from time to time when purchasing a box of network cards, it is not unheard of to get a box with two cards with the same address.

The sharing of access is quite common, some of my clients have been known to share T-mobile hot spot IDs, and even went as far to set each of the laptops with the same MAC address on the wireless card to so allow this. (T-mobiles network cannot detect this, the only limit is of course 2 or more of such shared laptops cannot use the same hotspot at the same time).

Ray Beckerman said...

Yes the RIAA's papers are an admission that they have no basis for suing the people whose names they would be provided were the names provided, and yet as we know that is precisely what the RIAA will do when it gets those names.
Hope the Judge is wise to them.

No I have no artifacts from my Bronx Science days; can't even find my pocket protectors.

Don't think I ever owned the jacket, but did own a well-worn Bronx Science bookbag.

I used the basketball court and the field for their intended purposes, not for nerdy activities of the type you describe. I played basketball on the basketball courts, and touch football at Harris Field, for hours every day after school, on into the night, before embarking on my 2-hour commute home to Southeast Queens.