Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

University Bows to RIAAs Demands for Student Names 271

jcgam69 writes "Hours after a federal court judge ordered Oklahoma State University to show cause why it shouldn't be held in contempt for failing to respond to an RIAA subpoena, attorneys for the school e-mailed a list of students' names to the RIAA's attorneys. But now that the RIAA has what it wanted, the group is unsure about how to go about sending out its pre-litigation settlement letters. Some of the students are represented by an attorney, meaning that the RIAA is barred from contacting them directly."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

University Bows to RIAAs Demands for Student Names

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nursie ( 632944 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @09:10AM (#22418800)
    Well, the RIAA's actions are very borderline in terms of legality, and IMHO it would make a good law school project.

    Also, universities ought to be complying with the law and I was pretty sure that, in a couple of cases, it had been demonstrated that names did not have to be handed over by ISPs...
  • Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by oneiros27 ( 46144 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @09:11AM (#22418816) Homepage
    Because the judge forced them to. (that's what the issue of 'contempt' is -- being arrested for not following the judge's orders)

    However, if you read the article, you'd see that the RIAA still can't contact _any_ of the students, because they don't know which ones have an attorney, and they're not allowed to contact those who have an attorney. Not being an attorney, I don't know what use having the names actually does the RIAA in this state. (they could try dragging the names through the mud, but then they've got a case for libel or slander against them)
  • Not exactly (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14, 2008 @09:19AM (#22418882)
    Some of the students are represented by an attorney, meaning that the RIAA is barred from contacting them directly.

    Not by a long shot. Only an attorney is barred from contacting another party represented by an attorney. The RIAA itself can contact them all they want, as long as the letter comes from an individual in the RIAA who is not an attorney.

    In suits I bring, contact defendants in civil litigation all the time despite the fact they are represented by an attorney. Pisses off the attorney, who wants to "filter" all information her client gets from me, but there is nothing they can do about it.
  • Re:The bully's fear (Score:5, Informative)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @10:11AM (#22419402)
    They (RIAA) are being sued for what they do, so don't come with that. However, as an association backed by large music companies, they have more money and thus can stand (delay) longer in court before giving up even though what they are doing is illegal and unethical, it's the corrupt system that allows them to do that.

    On another note, what the University did here might be illegal too. They are giving probably without a court order, a LIST of students' names to a third party. The RIAA is a PRIVATE organization, not a government or public benefactor and a judge can't order something that is against the law (that's what the RIAA is trying to force though). I know where I work (University) that would be against New York State, HIPAA and internal policy and if somebody in my group were to be sued, I would take it all the way to supreme court before I release anything.
  • Re:The bully's fear (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14, 2008 @10:14AM (#22419456)
    > ... or overthrow the government.

    Inciting people to overthrow the government is a crime, no?

    > and that the plaintiffs are completely within their rights to sue, and to use ...

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, just don't expect us to cheer them on...

    Oh, BTW, in criminal cases, the defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty. Reread your comment in this light. (Yes, I know these are not criminal cases. But given the previous track record of RIAA, your automatic assumption of guilt seems strange.)
  • Re:The bully's fear (Score:4, Informative)

    by mlwmohawk ( 801821 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @10:23AM (#22419550)
    It isn't at all the fault of the people who actually broke the law?

    Depends, they have the right to due process. They have the right of a fair trial.

    These people distributed copyrighted material that they had no right nor authorization to distribute. Representatives of the copyright holders found out about it, and are suing. Unless the representatives found out about it in an illegal way (read: non-admissible in court), they are fully within their rights to sue.

    These people are SUSPECTED of these actions. It is not clear that there is sufficient proof or any viable proof at all.

    But let us not forget that that there is evidence that the people being sued have broken the law and that the plaintiffs are completely within their rights to sue, and to use the facilities granted to them by law (i.e. warrants and subpoenas).

    Yes, and lets look at that evidence. It is a witch hunt.
  • Re:The bully's fear (Score:5, Informative)

    by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @10:26AM (#22419566)

    It isn't at all the fault of the people who actually broke the law?
    With what proof? An IP address? The RIAA lawsuit carpet-bombing are civil issues and simply don't have to hassle with the burden of proof a criminal case would have.

    In fact, with the exception of one high-profile slam-dunk case for the RIAA with a judgment of a quarter million dollars for the guilty music pirate, they have dropped every single other case that actually gets beyond a settlement phase into the bonafide legal system. And even then they drop the cases after shaking them down with subpoenas and discovery and other abuses of process with the hopes to bankrupt them and teach them a lesson.

    RIAA shouldn't have the power to demand a list of students with certain IP addresses for what they think is happening any more than I have the right to demand the name of the person using the IP address who I suspect was cheating in my FPS server. The POLICE and other law enforcement are the ones who should have the power to do that, with the burden of criminal just cause to obtain a warrant.

    If it's really a matter of law, why not just file a complaint with law ENFORCEMENT? I'll answer: to game the system because they know once casual sharing actually gets tested and appealed upwards then so very many of the copyright and DMCA clauses are in trouble under judicial review.
  • Re:The bully's fear (Score:5, Informative)

    by eiapoce ( 1049910 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @10:27AM (#22419576)
    An insightful reply demands a informative one:

    http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do [cq.com]
    http://opensecrets.org/ [opensecrets.org]

    Please check your candidates this time.
  • MAC spoofing (Score:3, Informative)

    by Skapare ( 16644 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @10:29AM (#22419606) Homepage

    And no one told them that MAC addresses can be faked? What the know is that their equipment is getting ethernet frames with the expected MAC address once the student has logged in.

    I've done such faking several times. I even have a couple computers that regularly run with a faked MAC address (for development testing purposes at work, using Intel ethernet chips). All someone needs to do is figure out a working MAC address of some other student that regularly turns off their computer, ping it every now and then to see when it goes off, and when it does, start using it along with the IP address it had acquired.

    They will need to go the extra step of requiring students operate through encrypted tunnels to prevent MAC spoofing (such tunnels running through a private IP network layer that cannot reach to internet ... to a central set of tunnel servers). If the MAC address is the only continuing authentication after the student logs in, and the traffic is not encrypted, then students that know what they are doing (and willing to do it) can take over in place of many others.

    And then there is the whole issue of planted proxies.

  • Re:The bully's fear (Score:3, Informative)

    by MikeyTheK ( 873329 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @10:36AM (#22419684)
    To be fair, the University is "bowing down" to a threatened contempt citation by the court. Actually I believe the wording was that the court was asking the University to explain why it should NOT be found to be in contempt. To this point it looks like OSU was being protective of their students. The whole ex-parte discovery argument is one of those things that legal techies love to debate, but OSU was pretty much out of good options, it appears.
  • Re:The bully's fear (Score:4, Informative)

    by melstav ( 174456 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @11:05AM (#22420044)

    On another note, what the University did here might be illegal too. They are giving probably without a court order, a LIST of students' names to a third party.
    (emphasis mine)

    From the Summary:

    Hours after a federal court judge ordered Oklahoma State University to show cause why it shouldn't be held in contempt for failing to respond to an RIAA subpoena...
    (emphasis mine)

    In case you are unfamiliar with the definition of a subpoena, it means "a court order". Reference a dictionary or even Wikipedia.

    The RIAA managed to convince one judge that they were wronged by someone on the university's network. That judge ordered the university to hand over the list so they could "identify" the specific individuals. They initially refused. When the judge said "Explain to me why you think you shouldn't have to comply with the court order," the university said "Oops. sorry. our bad. here you go."

    Whether you agree with the reasoning behind any of the events, or even the right/wrongness of them, that truly is a summary of what had happened.

    And, somewhat ironically, my captcha (since I don't stay logged in to SlashDot) is "freedom".
  • RTFS (Score:3, Informative)

    by way2trivial ( 601132 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @11:05AM (#22420046) Homepage Journal
    s=summary...

    "failing to respond to an RIAA subpoena"

    see that last word in the quote above?
    that is a court order, of a type that can be challenged
    see the summary
    "Hours after a federal court judge ordered Oklahoma State University to show cause"

    see, 'cause' would be the challenge. The judge demanded a challenge or submission to the request.
    the university submitted a response to a cort order, so the entire second half of your comment is moot.

  • Re:The bully's fear (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @11:38AM (#22420510)

    It isn't at all the fault of the people who actually broke the law?

    These people distributed copyrighted material that they had no right nor authorization to distribute.
    Woah boy! Since when does being accused by the RIAA automatically mean someone is guilty?
    There have been numerous examples of the MAFIAA targetting the wrong people and even worse, the standard level of evidence they routinely bring to court has been laughably vague. They don't verify that the material being distributed is their material, they just go by keywords in filenames, some of them so general as to be meaningless.

    You've made one hell of a leap of logic there and you should be ashamed of yourself for not applying some critical thinking beforehand.
  • Re:Good (Score:2, Informative)

    by Ciggy ( 692030 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @01:02PM (#22421858)

    We all agree that piracy is a crime, but this isn't piracy.
    Agreed

    Piracy is taking something, making tons of copies, and selling them... black marketing, etc...
    Neither is it that.

    Piracy [wikipedia.org] is the raiding of a ship or boat.

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Working...