University of Oregon Fights RIAA
My suggestion that Cornell University isn’t doing enough to fight the RIAA was met with criticism and accusations of trolling; apparently the idea that Universities shouldn’t have to attack their own students is a foreign concept to my readers. So, in stark contract to Cornell let’s take a look at the University of Oregon’s motion to quash an RIAA subpoena:
In Arista v. Does 1-17, a new ex parte case to get discovery from the University of Oregon about the identities of its students, the Oregon Department of Justice has made a motion, on behalf of the University of Oregon, to quash the subpoena obtained by the RIAA. This is the first such motion of which we are aware that has been made by the university itself, rather than by the students. 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 University is represented by the Oregon Attorney General who argues lucidly that the RIAA doesn’t have sufficient evidence to be throwing subpoenas around:
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.
Here’s a link to MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FRCP 45 B(3)(A) BY THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FRCP 45B(3)(A) BY THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON. Note that this is the course of action I advised Cornell to follow in my last RIAA post 
| This entry was posted on Friday, November 2nd, 2007 at 1:39 pm and is tagged with riaa subpoena, oregon attorney general, state attorney general, cornell university, interrogatories, oregon department, university of oregon, plaintiffs, depositions, arista, first instance, subpoenas, department of justice, accusations, obligation, discovery, accuracy, congress, suggestion, universities. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback. |
2 Responses to “University of Oregon Fights RIAA”
Leave a Reply
It’s good to see that Oregon is fighting the RIAA – they are out of control in my opinion.
I was very grateful to see the fine work of the State Attorney General of Oregon and the University of Oregon. Hopefully this will encourage other academic institutions to protect their students’ due process and other privacy rights.
The reasoning of the Attorney General is fully applicable to all of the RIAA’s cases. It is, in essence, that the RIAA’s evidence does not point toward an infringer.