The University of Oregon in Eugene, long known for being a center of political action, is one of the first educational institutions to refuse to give the RIAA the names of its students.
The RIAA has been having a very tough time of it in recent years. Technology has been changing towards digital and online content, and rather than buy CD's, people are using mp3 devices like the iPod to carry around their whole music collection in their pocket. Yet the RIAA is desperately seeking to hold on to an outdated system in hopes of retaining the massive profits therein.
Musicians are taking the helm and getting out of their old contracts so that they can release their own albums, like
Radiohead did with their latest album
"In Rainbows" which they made available online, letting people pay what they feel the album is worth. Trent Reznor of
Nine Inch Nails has been extremely outspoken against the RIAA, calling them thieves. He released his latest album
"Year Zero" online as well.
Now, it seems that venues of education are getting into the fray. The University of Oregon has refused to turn over its students' names to the RIAA, and for some very legitimate reasons (although the principle in itself is enough).
U of O's dorms are mostly double-occupancy, and there are no login requirements on the computers there, making it impossible for the U of O to determine exactly who downloaded anything, according to
Slashdot.
The U of O is telling the RIAA in so many words that if it wants to find out who dowloaded material, they need to do their own investigation, as the university has education to tend to.
A blog called
"Recording Industry vs.The People," provides a snippet of the letter sent to the RIAA by the Attorney General of the State of Oregon:
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 fiom 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.
Perhaps they will set an example for other universities to stop bending to the RIAA's whims and get them to change with the times.
