Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Oklahoma State University Students Move to Vacate Ex Parte Order; Security Expert Says RIAA Declaration is Wrong

In Arista v. Does 1-11, an ex parte proceeding to get the names and addresses of 11 Oklahoma State University students, several of the students have brought on a motion to vacate the Court's ex parte order and quash the subpoena that was served upon the university pursuant to that subpoena.

The expert witness who submitted a declaration in support of the motion stated that the declaration of the RIAA's Carlos Linares was "factually erroneous" and "misleading".

Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Vacate*
Expert Witness Declaration of Jayson Street*
Attachment 1 -- November 2004 Order in Fonovisa v. Does*

The students are represented by Marilyn Barringer-Thomson, the victorious lawyer for the defendants in Capitol v. Foster and Warner v. Stubbs.

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Ars Technica
Slashdot (Story on Multiple Cases)
Anime on my mind


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


AMD FanBoi said...


While slightly off-topic on this discussion thread, I wanted to put it up where it will be read.

When the RIAA claims, as they often have, to have identified a specific IP connection AND COMPUTER distributing copyrighted works, challenge them immediately to give the identifying information for the computer they have located. They should be able, at minimum, to provide the manufacturer, model, serial number, and license key information for the operating system installed. To have identified the actual computer, as they maintain, would, at minimum, have this much identifying information available.

This is especially relevant because they don't demand that all computers be turned over for inspection nearly as often as they demand all hard drives, and sometimes other data storage devices such as MP3 players, as the devices to be turned over fishing. This indicates that they DON'T know the actual hard drives involved, which also have serial numbers.

And if they can't actually identify the computer in use, they should be forced (Rule 11, anyone?) to quit saying that they have.

And when they maintain that said Defendant and computer has ILLEGALLY DOWNLOADED copyrighted works, demand strict proof thereof that any work in question was actually downloaded using a Media Distribution System (I gag as I type those words), and not copied onto a hard drive by other means, as say ripping a CD, or MP3 files brought over by a friend. The RIAA speaks with such certainty on how every event must have happened, and each time it is shown that what they maintain as absolute truth has many other explanations, it calls into question their other contentions. They act infallible, and are hardly thus.

- - - - - - - - - -

Btw, I'm happy to finally see an effective challenge to the RIAA ex parte bulldozer tactics used so far. I especially love the restatement of the RIAA's action as more accurately:

"...on the grounds that the individual users of internet services infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights by storing files on their computers while connected to the internet without sufficient protection to prevent third parties from accessing those music files and copying them."

And as very relevant to what I've said above:

"Plaintiffs are unable to identify any individual computer from which any alleged infringement of their copyrighted music occurred."

- - - - - - - - - -


One last question: In Fonovisa versus Does, did the RIAA ever re-file 250 additional cases against a single Doe defendant each?

raybeckerman said...

don't know if they refiled, but i strongly doubt it....