In Arista v. Does 1-11, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the case against Oklahoma State University students, despite the Court's denial of the motion by some of the students to quash the subpoena, it appears that the university has failed to respond to the subpoena.
According to the RIAA lawyers, the university has "neglected" to respond to the subpoena despite "many reminders".
Oddly, it appears that the RIAA is asking the Court to direct the students' lawyer, Marilyn Barringer-Thomson, to divulge the identities of her clients, which is clearly confidential information protected by attorney-client privilege.
[Ed. note: Anyone have any ideas on why Oklahoma State University hasn't complied with the subpoena? Is it possible that, being a state university, it might have consulted with Oklahoma's Attorney General, and learned that it has been violating federal law by failing to protect its students' legal rights? Maybe the Oklahoma AG has read the papers of the Oregon AG pointing out that the RIAA is asking the university to violate federal law and that the RIAA has itself violated a cluster of laws? Just wondering. -R.B.]
RIAA Application for order to show cause and conference*
Exhibit (January 31, 2008, letter of Marilyn Barringer-Thomson*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Commentary & discussion:
Keywords: digital copyright law online internet 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 intellectual property