Slashdot Log In
Marshall University Challenges RIAA
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Apr 22, 2008 03:04 PM
from the mixed-results dept.
from the mixed-results dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Marshall University, in Huntington, West Virginia, has become just the second US college or university to show the moxie to stand up for its students instead of instantly caving in to RIAA extortion. In February, Marshall, represented by the Attorney General of the State of West Virginia, made a motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena for student identities, pointing out in exquisite detail in its long-time IT guy's affidavit (PDF) the impossibility of identifying copyright 'infringers' based on the RIAA's meager evidence. Unfortunately, the Magistrate — under the mistaken impression that the RIAA isn't going to sue the identified students, but merely wants to talk to them — recommended that the subpoena be okayed by the District Judge (PDF). It is not yet known whether Marshall will be filing objections. The first US college or university known to have attacked the RIAA's subpoena was the University of Oregon, which — also represented by its state's Attorney General — made a motion to quash last November, and even questioned the legality of the RIAA's methods. The Oregon motion is still pending."
Related Stories
[+]
U.of Oregon Says No to RIAA 241 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The University of Oregon has filed a motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena for information on student identities in what is believed to be the first such motion made by a university with support from the state Attorney General. The motion (pdf) explains that it is impossible to identify the alleged infringers from the information the RIAA has presented: '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 was accessed and whether or not the computer used was a Macintosh or a PC ... 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.' The AG's motion further argues (pdf) that "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. One commentator has likened the AG's argument to saying, in effect, that the RIAA's evidence is 'rubbish'."
[+]
Oregon AG Seeks to Investigate RIAA Tactics 114 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Turning the tables on the RIAA's attempt to subpoena information from the University of Oregon, that state's Attorney General has now filed additional papers to conduct immediate discovery into the RIAA's 'data mining' techniques. These techniques include the use of unlicensed investigators, the turning over of subpoenaed information to collection agencies, and the obtaining of personal information from computers. The AG pointed out (pdf) that 'Because Plaintiffs routinely obtain ex parte discovery in their John Doe infringement suits ... their factual assertions supporting their good cause argument are never challenged by an adverse party and their investigative methods remain free of scrutiny. They often settle their cases quickly before defendants obtain legal representation and begin to conduct discovery.'"
[+]
Your Rights Online: NewYorkCountryLawyer Debates RIAA VP 291 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "At Fordham Law School's annual IP Law Conference this year, Slashdot member NewYorkCountryLawyer had a chance to square off with Kenneth Doroshow, a Senior Vice President of the RIAA, over the subject of copyright statutory damages. Doroshow thought the Jammie Thomas verdict of $222,000 was okay, he said, since Ms. Thomas might have distributed 10 million unauthorized copies. NYCL, on the other hand, who has previously derided the $9,250-per-song file verdict as 'one of the most irrational things [he has] ever seen in [his] life in the law', stated at the Fordham conference that the verdict had made the United States 'a laughingstock throughout the world.' An Australian professor on the panel said, 'The comment has been made a few times that America is out of whack and you are a laughingstock in the rest of the world. As the only non-American on the panel, that's true. We do see the cases like Thomas in our newspapers, and we think: "Wow, those crazy Americans, what are they up to now?"
This whole notion of statutory damages is not something that we have within our Copyright Act. You actually have to be able to prove damage for you to be able to be compensated for that.' NYCL also got to debate the 'making available' issue, saying that there was no 'making available' right in US copyright law, despite the insistence of the program's moderator, the 'keynote' speaker, and a 'majority vote' of the audience that there was such a right. The next day, two decisions came down, and a month later yet another decision came down, all rejecting the 'making available' theory."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
2nd university to show a movie? (Score:2)
Re:2nd university to show a movie? (Score:5, Funny)
Soundtrack available through...oh, wait...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
available NOW (764 seeds, 1132 leeches)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:2nd university to show a movie? (Score:4, Funny)
Lower ranking RIAA lawyer: Oh no! The college students are revolting!
Higher ranking RIAA lawyer: We already know this.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hunh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless I have missed something, the magistrate judge's opinion is not based on the idea that the RIAA "merely wants to talk to" the students. Where does it say that?
Curiously, the magistrate judge's opinion does not even address the central issue, of whether the RIAA's evidence is sufficient to support the subpoena. It is devoted entirely to the question of whether the subpoena imposes an excessive burden on the university. His ruling that the university's burden is not great because it is merely required to produced the names of the students associated with the IP addresses, not to determine who was using the machines at the times of the alleged infringement,appears to be correct.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hunh? (Score:5, Insightful)
All the university would know is that something with a specific MAC address was using that IP at that specific time.
Since MAC addresses are spoofable, how can they be related to a specific person at all?
Parent
Re:Hunh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Users are typically registered. Usually in universities, this is accomplished through a captive portal which records the MAC and username (authenticated with a password.) This ties the MAC to the user. From there, it's trivial to tie the packets to the MAC--spoofing IP addresses is trivial on most networking equipment in use by universities (i.e. we're not talking crappy Linksys routers, here.) MAC spoofing is rare, but also quite easy to block on the switch, long before any damning traffic occurred. Even if it isn't explicitly blocked, it would be a special case that would need to be handled when trying to identify the student, but it is by no means a dealbreaker.
Of course, if the student is running a wireless access point, you run into problems. This is why some universities don't allow wireless access points to be connected to the network (they can't outright ban them due to FCC regulations) and the university agreements almost universally state that traffic originating from the student's port is considered to be the student's liability.
ISPs (including universities) have valid reasons for wanting to be able to track people down. It's unfortunate that the ability to track people down means that they can give up their information when the RIAA comes subpoenaing.
Parent
Re:Hunh? (Score:4, Informative)
At the University I went to, CU, the wifi was unsecured, aside from the MAC address check. Yes, I did have to register the MAC to me, but then the MAC address was broadcast in the open, and could easily be spoofed, which I have used in the past.
Agreed that over wired ethernet, it is much easier to prevent MAC spoofing, but what about wifi?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It may be that high-end networking equipment can disable wireless connections originat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about every university, but every one that I've used the network on is basically totally open. Can't recall ever having to authenticate or do anything other than simply plug in and go. That's how it was in the dorms I lived in (albeit 6 or so years ago), as well as the public access points (libraries) of my and other nearby universities.
I have no doubt there are universities that do more, but I sure wouldn't assume that to be the case by default. In fact, I've been to more than one univers
Re: (Score:2)
I do think that ease of communication is inherently necessary to the educational process, but I don't think that anonymous communication necessarily is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a chain of evidence which is used to get a person in many universities. It's the same way any ISP would track usage down to a specific user.
But not all universities are alike in how they structure their networks and allocate their resources. They are not even alike in how much resources they get. Marshall University is definitely one where costs are kept as low as they can get them. West Virginia is not one of the rich states.
Users are typically registered. Usually in universities, this is accomplished through a captive portal which records the MAC and username (authenticated with a password.) This ties the MAC to the user.
That would be so at that moment in time, no accounting for the issues involved with students using wireless over their dorm connections.
From there, it's trivial to tie the packets to the MAC--spoofing IP addresses is trivial on most networking equipment in use by universities (i.e. we're not talking crappy Linksys routers, here.) MAC spoofing is rare, but also quite easy to block on the switch, long before any damning traffic occurred.
It's not necessarily easy to block it, as that results in problems moving c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, what? How does this happen?
I mean, yes, it'd be somewhat more difficult if we're not on the same network, but there's always other networks, and wifi, on any sufficiently large campus. Besides, my understanding is that a switch can't know which nic actually "owns" that mac address, thus whoever had it first "wins" and gets the IP also.
And then, there's always the possibility of simply register
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Students need to log into school servers to use school resources. The www proxy is often not under that umbrella. Try it. An Ubuntu live CD works fine for a zero fingerprint session. Boot, set the browser to use autoproxy, and surf. No login ID or finerprints are left on the machine. BT and an external USB drive work fine.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless every single connection from the computer was authenticated to the MUNET account, all you would know is that a MAC address is registered to a MUNET account, and that a specific IP was assigned to a given MAC address through DHCP.
What you don't know is if the owner of the MUNET account owned the device that was sending out that MAC address at that time, just that the owner of the MUNET's computer defaults to a specific MAC address.
Do any universities require an encrypted tunnel of some sort
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If a gun is used in a crime, and you have a body and a bullet, then yeah, you can go and talk to him. And if he doesn't want to talk? He doesn't have to. Unless you arrest him, in which case he gets a lawyer, and you have to release him if you dont' have at least some evidence he did something wrong that you can charge him with.
With these RIAA cases, we don't even have a *crime* here. Nevermind a bullet. Yet the ISP (university) is expected to hand over contact information without so much as bli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"A significant part of this burden, however, stems from a mistaken belief that the University was required to determine who was 'using a given computer a given time'. By requiring plaintiffs to serve an amended subpoena making it clear that they seek only identifying information with respect to the person associated with the IP address at the date and time of the alleged infringing use, the perceived burden should be reduced."
Jeeze... Considering that an IP address is in all practical
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with you. I think that the RIAA's approach is ridiculous. My point is that that isn't what the decision addressed. All it talks about is the question of whether the subpoena imposes an excessive burden on the university.
Go WVa (Score:2)
Where's NewYorkCountyLawyer? FTFA
Nice touch man.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go WVa (Score:4, Informative)
What did you think of the IT guy's affidavit? I felt it was a model of clarity, explaining to the judge that the RIAA doesn't have a case against these kids. The IT guy at the University of Arizona did a good job on that same issue [blogspot.com] but the school, like idiots, just caved in and turned over the information, ignoring the motion to quash [blogspot.com] which one of the students had filed.
Parent
411 (Score:3, Insightful)
What an idiotic impression. Even if it was a correct impression (how anyone who's done a hint of research on the situation could have that impression is beyond me...), I'd like to think that legal officials would discourage people from using the legal system as their publicly funded 411 service. This whole situation (the RIAA lawsuits as a whole) blows my mind more and more every day and not just because of how moronic the RIAA are. Sadly, they aren't the only idiots running around...
This is a shake down (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Add one to the list of respectable u.s. colleges (Score:2)
I Don't Get It (Score:3, Interesting)
But then there's this:
absent the identifying information from the university, plaintiffs simply cannot proceed with their lawsuit, establishes to the Court's satisfaction that Marshall University's obligation under the subpoena is not unduly burdensome.
That seems to make no logical sense at all. The judge seems to be saying that if Plaintiffs cannot proceed with their case otherwise, then there is no such thing as a subpoena that's too burdensome on non-party Marshall University.
Is this judge out of his freaking mind!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That seems to make no logical sense at all. The judge seems to be saying that if Plaintiffs cannot proceed with their case otherwise, then there is no such thing as a subpoena that's too burdensome on non-party Marshall University.
Is this judge out of his freaking mind!!!
You're correct that the notion that the plaintiff's ability to proceed or not should have little bearing on the decision of whether or not the subpoena is overly burdensome. You've left out the first half of the argument though, that it's not burdensome because it only requires the names and IP addresses. The judge seems at best guilty of poor (maybe even deceptive) wording here. I see nothing wrong with the actual basis for his decision though. I mean, how burdensome is it to cough up the info?
Seriousl
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't give the RIAA the information they're looking for. All the automatic logs attempt to do is match an IP address to a MAC (media access control) address on the remote device at the time in question. Who is the supposed owner of the equipment with that MAC address is in a second completely separate database, which contains most likely just student id num
Re:I Don't Get It (Score:5, Informative)
2. The university argued it can't identify the infringers, and spelled out in the IT guy's affidavit why it's impossible, without conducting an elaborate investigation.
3. The magistrate ruled 'they're not asking you for the identities of the infringers', they just want to know who's associated with the IP address.
4. He is apparently unaware of the RIAA equation, "whoever is associated with the IP address" = "the defendant" = "the infringer". He is assuming the RIAA lawyers conduct themselves like real lawyers.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Tomato, tomahto? (Score:2, Interesting)
Marshall argues
Ex
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how is finding "the person associated with [an] IP address at [a] date and time" different from determining who was "using a given computer at a given time"?
The person using the computer, if he were using it to commit copyright infringement, is an infringer, while the person whose internet access account would not be. If it were my internet access, but you plugged your laptop in at my dorm room, and used it to infringe someone's copyright, you would be the infringer, and I would be blameless. But I would be the one the RIAA sues. The Magistrate doesn't realize what morons he's dealing with. Marshall's IT guy is aware.
Diet counsel for Universities (Score:2)
3 cheers for the WV AG (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm not very bright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And even after all the years of these articles. (Score:5, Interesting)
A music thief is someone who steals CDs from Best Buy. A music thief is also someone who scams a recording artist he's signed a contract with out of all his royalties, like the music industry has done time and again.
Which label do you work for again, Mr. Cpward? Sony-BMG? If so, there's a special place in hell for you.
Parent
Re:And even after all the years of these articles. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Second, while I dislike the comparison of copyright infringement to thievery, it is nonetheless illegal. It is likely less immoral, but that's not a judgement call that the government should be making.
Re:And even after all the years of these arti SUX! (Score:3, Interesting)
And the punishment (fines) for stealing that physical CD from Best Buy is one to several hundred times less than the statutory damages asked for and allowed under law ($750 to $150,000 PER TRACK) for online copyright infringement. Tell me how that makes any sense!
And the recording industry is lobbying hard to RAISE those statutory damage limits EVEN HIGHER.
I'm sorry, but they have an overly exaggerated view of the true value of their product.