Saturday, December 06, 2008

Reconsideration motion denied by Magistrate Judge in LaFace Records v. Does 1-5 in Michigan

In LaFace Records v. Does 1-5, a case in the Western District of Michigan targeting students at Northern Michigan University, the Magistrate Judge has denied reconsideration of his decision denying the motion by pro se defendant John Doe #5 to quash the RIAA's subpoena.

December 2, 2008, Order of Magistrate Judge denying motion for reconsideration

Keywords: lawyer 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 portable music player


Anonymous said...

Order of the Magistrate Judge:

I didn't make a mistake before and I don't like your insinuation that I did. I'm not going to reopen the question of how I might have been wrong then, now. Besides, you're just a thieving kid and they are big important companies.

This man recommends that Doe #5, along with appealing this opinion to the presiding judge (is that the correct term for a regular judge?), go to his university to raise two points with them:

First, that this really does place an undue burden on the university to have to comply with this subpoena.

Second, that the university's identification of him (her) being the actual infringer detected is far from absolute given the information available to them and that he should not be called out based on faulty information. He should also inquire just how many requests for information this university has received from the RIAA so far that could not be identified at all from the information provided. While it's easy to identify a bogus request when there is no matching IP address in the logs, it is much harder to prove error when the IP address does match some user who may very well not have been the actual user involved. This Doe also needs to have a network diagram from the network connection in his room (or wherever else he was accused of being at the time in question) all the way up through the exit point interface between the university and the internet at large to determine what possible routers, switches, hubs, and other devices might have altered/affected the IP address in ways beyond his (her) control. And he must include any router in his own room that might have been installed to allow multiple computers to use the same Internet connection.

From what this man has seen lately, if the university admits that they cannot absolutely identify a single user from the information provided (multiple occupants of a dorm room, wireless connection, router, etc.) that the university should not identify any single person as the responsible party – no matter how badly the RIAA just wants a name and address to pressure for a settlement.

If all that fails, well there's always the approach of a different computer with the same MAC address being provided to the Plaintiffs that shows no sign of illicit activity. Or a hundred such computers with identical MAC addresses provided, making the case that it's truly impossible to identify any specific computer from just an IP address and a timestamp.

Btw, did Doe #5 agree to have his (her) case heard before a Magistrate Judge? This man thought that it required agreement on all sides to be heard my a Magistrate Judge as opposed to a full or regular judge.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Travis said...

So I guess my question is would it be possible to sue the University if they mis-identified you? I bet that would make them less complicit.