University of Oregon and the Oregon’s Attorney General are fighting against RIAA subpoenas for student names in alleged file sharing cases. This is great news. It is nice to see a university standing up for the privacy rights of students and not enabling the RIAA to harass students with unsubstantiated claims.

EFF has done a great job summarizing the arguments of the college.

In its brief, the University makes 5 arguments:

1) The University is already preserving information, so there is no need for ex parte subpoenas;
2) the subpoena imposes an undue burden because the University cannot tell who the file-sharer was without additional investigation;
3) the language of subpoena is overbroad;
4) the FERPA bars disclosure of the identifying information; and
5) Section 512(h) of the DMCA provides the exclusive mechanism for ex parte subpoenas to ISPs in these circumstances.

The last argument, if accepted by the court, could radically change the nature of the RIAA’s 4-year litigation campaign against music fans. Currently, the recording industry’s strategy relies on pressuring universities into handing over student targets, either by having the university deliver “pre-litigation settlement letters” to students or, failing that, forcing universities to respond to subpoenas obtained after filing a “John Doe” lawsuit. If these avenues are blocked, the recording industry would have to undertake its own investigatory efforts to determine who to sue.

More at EFF

Znet also has a good article on U of O and the AG’s reasons for fighting the subpoenas:

The AG’s office says the RIAA is engaging in unethical behavior towards the court. Despite the fact that deputy AG Randolph Geller told RIAA counsel Katheryn Coggon that the school would preserve all the relevant data, the RIAA said in its subpoena request that:

there was a “very real danger the ISP will not long preserve” the data it wanted.

Having just taken the California Bar’s professional responsibility exam I can tell you such a misrepresentation could result in disciplinary action, IMO.
Since it would take so much effort to ID the students, the RIAA is essentially shifting its own investigatory burden onto the state.

“In short, the subpoena requires the University to create discoverable material to assist Plaintiffs in their litigation rather than merely disclose existing documents,” argues the school, citing case law that indicates that non-parties “are not required to create documents that do not exist, simply for the purposes of discovery.”

More from ZNET

Go Ducks!