In Your Face, RIAA. The University of Oregon Takes A Stand. - Rmail
Posted by elveston priory at 10:25 pm
In Arista’s case against 17 unidentified students at The University of Oregon, the state’s Attorney General has made a motion to quash the subpoena obtained by the RIAA. This is a rather radical move, and the first of its kind that we’ve seen in cases regarding the RIAA, where most of the motions have come from the students and not the institution. It seems to be a very different stance than most educational institutions, who seem to be more cooperative when it comes to the RIAA.
In the motion, the University of Oregon has basically said that there is no way to identify 16 of the 17 John Does in question, due to the communal nature of school computers, and the registration and log in requirements (or lack thereof) initiated by the school. This boils down to the fact that there’s a huge cloud of reasonable doubt when you’re dealing with university students that share a school network.
And without holding an investigation itself, The University of Oregon has stated that it cannot find, with certainty, the students in question. This is a particularly important point in motion, as the Arista case has had the subpoena drawn up under a clause that does not require The University of Oregon to undertake such an internal investigation. The University has named the DMCA as the correct channel to go through for the school having to take these measures.
So will this result in Arista simply going at The University of Oregon with a different angle? Or could this in fact backfire and encourage a company like the RIAA to push for more stringent identification measures when it comes to shared networks? In the end, Arista may simply want to hold someone responsible, and may just take the University itself to court. We’ve seen how determined the industry could be to take someone down in court to make a statement, with the cases against UseNet and Jammie Thomas. Read below for an excerpt of the university’s motion.
[via recording industry vs. people]
User comment: By: u320908Dude are you kidding!
User comment: By: BRIXRIAA stand for: Really Ignorant Arrogant A$$#013$
User comment: By: FakePeteCashmoreAnyone who steals music should have their hands and ears chopped off. If you legalize music sharing, you basically legalize theft. Oh sure, it may be just an mp3. But once people get the idea that stealing music is okay, they're going to take your car, your tv, and everything else. The RIAA is the only thing stopping the world from falling into a blackened pit of total anarchy.
User comment: By: Ed IlligWhat do you think I've been doing ever since I wrote it?
User comment: By: Ed IlligDirect post comments: 2 Direct Ed comments: 2 This is huge for me. I just knew the use of flippant would pay off big.
User comment: By: Street AttackI think you (ed) wrote the post just to say "tavitly culpable" and "flippant", but yes this is an interesting bit to look into.
User comment: By: FakeMAFUK U RIAA
User comment: By: kevinnormanI'd say if they catch whoever is responsible, the punishment for the offender(s) should be to read Ed's post (out loud) over, and over, and over, and over again.
Visit here to subscribe to these commentsUser comment: By: Ed IlligStandard practice would be to step up the legalese and get more pointed with the institution. A forced advocate. Litigate against everyone see who flinches first. In this case the heat would likely be applied to the U. of Oregon if for no other reason than to force allegiance and establish that, although they may not actually find the John Does, the school is nevertheless tacitly culpable—or at least to set or maintain a general precedence of complicity and ultimately compliance. In some ways Arista cannot afford to allow the institution to be flippant with them. If I'm correct, the really interesting scenario would be the U of Oregon's response to litigation posturing...I would think.
R|mail.