p2pnet news | RIAA News:- We’ve just learned the University of Oregon wants a court to dismiss a claim made by Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA against 17 students

On what grounds? That the RIAA’s claim is, in effect, rubbish.

And in a major upset for the Big 4, representing the university is the Oregon attorney general, says Recording Industry vs The People.

In effect, the RIAA ‘investigation’ halted at the precise point where it should have begun, says Randolph Geller, deputy Orgeon general counsel, and a special assistant attorney general.

“In the case of sixteen of the seventeen John Does, I believe it is not possible for the university to identify the alleged infringers without conducting interviews and a forensic investigation of the computers likely involved,” he states in a motion to quash.

However, in these cases, as with all others, the RIAA simply says it believes somebody may have done something.

‘Now, give us the names, addresses so we can prove it.’

“This is the first such motion of which we are aware that has been made by the university itself, rather than by the students,” says Ray Beckerman, going on >>>

It is also the first instance of which we are aware of a State Attorney General bringing a motion to quash an RIAA subpoena.

The motion papers of the Attorney General argue that it is impossible to identify the alleged infringers from the information the RIAA has presented:

7. [We] have attempted to identify all seventeen alleged infringers and have been unable to do so.

8. 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 wis accessed and whether or not the computer used was a Macintosh or a PC. No login or personally identifiable information, i.e. authentication, was used by the Does to access the University’s network because none is required. 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.

9. Two of the seventeen John Does accessed the content in question from single occupancy dorm rooms at the University. No login or personally identifiable information, i.e. authentication, was used by the Does to access the university’s network because none is required. The University cannot determine whether the content was accessed by the room occupant or visitor.

10. Nine of the seventeen John Does accessed the content in question from the University’s wireless network or a similar system called the “HDSL Circuit.” These systems do record a user name associated with the access. For these John Does, the University can determine the identity of the individual who bas been assigned the user name, however, it is unable to determine whether the content was accessed by the individual assigned that user name or by someone else using the computer associated with the user name.

11. In the case of sixteen of the seventeen John Does, I believe it is not possible for the University to identify the alleged infringers without conducting interviews and a forensic investigation of the computers likely involved.

Accordingly, the AG concludes,

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. Plaintiffs’ subpoena is additionally invalid because Congress intended Plaintiffs to use the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the information they seek, not Rule 45. Lastly, the University should be allowed access to Plaintiffs through interrogatories and depositions to determine whether Plaintiffs have additional information with which to identify
Defendants.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ subpoena should be quashed.

University of Oregon’s Motion to Quash
University of Oregon’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Quash

Definitely stay tuned.

Slashdot it!

Also See:
Recording Industry vs The People - Oregon Attorney General Says No to RIAA, November 1, 2007

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pm and is filed under RIAA News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

HOME

Viewed 6998 times