George Washington Univ. students next to feel RIAA's wrath

Nineteen students at George Washington University are about to become the next targets of the recording industry's wrath.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on October 11 approved subpoenas to uncover the identity of the 19 "John Does" listed as defendants by the Recording Industry Association of America.

A key ingredient in Beer Pong

(Credit: Declan McCullagh/mccullagh.org)

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (best known for her role in the Microsoft antitrust trial) granted the RIAA's request to serve the university with an immediate subpoena.

She required that George Washington University to tell its students--or faculty or staff if they're the ones behind the IP addresses in question--about the existence of the subpoenas in five business days.

She also gave the school and any of the John Does 25 days to respond with a legal motion opposing the subpoena. The RIAA had suggested only 15 days.

The RIAA's full list of allegedly infringing IP addresses and dates is below. One IP address, 161.253.5.32, notably contributed a post to Wikihow.com warning not to light on fire a ping pong ball used in the "beer pong" drinking game "because it has alchol (sic) residue on it and it will burst into flames."

To be fair to the current owner of 161.253.5.32, perhaps the university rotates IP addresses instead of assigning fixed ones to each student.

Other students are fighting back against the RIAA, sometimes with some success. Some Florida students have argued that they shouldn't all have been named as defendants in a single lawsuit. Some courts have denied the record labels' requests for ex parte orders, meaning that only the RIAA is present in the courtroom.

And on Tuesday, seven alleged file-sharers at North Carolina State University banded together to file a motion jointly opposing an RIAA John Doe subpoena--a useful tactic that lets them share the costs of a legal defense.

Doe # 1 IP Address:  128.164.100.11 2007-02-02 05:59:17 EST 
Doe # 2 IP Address:  128.164.100.11 2007-03-05 04:29:42 EST 
Doe # 3 IP Address:  128.164.100.158 2007-04-14 16:57:39 EDT 
Doe # 4 IP Address:  128.164.100.22 2007-03-26 02:02:52 EDT 
Doe # 5 IP Address:  128.164.100.72 2007-05-10 00:24:36 EDT 
Doe # 6 IP Address:  128.164.100.76 2007-05-07 00:18:52 EDT 
Doe # 7 IP Address:  128.164.100.9 2007-04-29 18:19:00 EDT 
Doe # 8 IP Address:  128.164.102.11 2007-03-25 17:28:46 EDT 
Doe # 9 IP Address:  128.164.102.170 2007-02-27 20:13:57 EST 
Doe # 10 IP Address:  128.164.102.177 2007-03-07 15:52:17 EST 
Doe # 11 IP Address:  128.164.102.65 2007-04-13 10:28:59 EDT 
Doe # 12 IP Address:  128.164.102.86 2007-04-11 04:40:34 EDT 
Doe # 13 IP Address:  161.253.19.181 2007-03-24 14:31:00 EDT 
Doe # 14 IP Address:  161.253.34.17 2007-05-07 10:05:05 EDT 
Doe # 15 IP Address:  161.253.34.17 2007-05-09 00:40:25 EDT 
Doe # 16 IP Address:  161.253.34.17 2007-05-09 03:16:12 EDT 
Doe # 17 IP Address:  161.253.34.17 2007-05-11 18:22:16 EDT 
Doe # 18 IP Address:  161.253.34.17 2007-05-13 05:27:54 EDT 
Doe # 19 IP Address:  161.253.5.32 2007-04-02 04:11:49 EDT 

[aka_tripleB]

Can someone explain these "ex parte orders"

They sound like they're unconstitutional, because people have the right to defend themselves. And if they're not in the court room, it'd be pretty hard to do that.

[declan00]

ex parte orders

You're right that ex parte orders implicate the Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially the 5th Amendment.<br /><br />If you poke around I'm sure you can find a law review article or a Supreme Court opinion on point. But my suspicion is that courts permit them (a) in emergency circumstances and (b) when it's a non-final judgment.<br /><br />Under U.S. law, believe it or not, copyright infringement can fulfill (a)'s requirement. As for (b), the RIAA would argue that all they're trying to do is unmask John Does, who will have subsequent opportunities to defend themselves.<br /><br />Personally, I'm not a fan of ex parte orders, but I hope this clarifies things a bit. I'd welcome a pointer to a more definitive explanation.

[Ming The Merciless]

Ex Parte Unconstitutional............you jest

Ex Parte legal proceedings have historically been part of our legal system. Ex parte hearings are commonly used when seeking a Domestic Violence injunction. Usually the judge issues a preliminary order and sets a future hearing date to either continue, modify or stay the order pending trial. In the case of the RIAA their attorney's seem to be using the tactic to intimidate. There is no urgent need for an ex parte hearing.

[rdupuy11]

The sound like it only

Ex-parte orders have become commonplace. For example in family law, the wife asking for a divorce will demand an emergency support award and various restraining orders...restraining orders are granted without evidence or trial, so its a great tactic to make your ex look really wicked even if they've done nothing.<br /><br />anyway...happens every single day.<br /><br />My biggest issue, is people still believing defendents have all these rights....they need to update what they teach in schools...those rights are a thing of the past.

[kerryhiggins]

RIAA'S WRATH ? SOUNDS LIKE RIAA HARRASMENT TO ME.....

SOUNDS LIKE THE RIAA IS A SET OF MEMBERS WHO THINK<br />THAT THEY ARE HOLLYER THAN THOU KIND OF PEOPLE....<br />WHERE IN FACT ALL THEY ARE IS A GROUP OF COMPUTER<br />HACKERS INVADING OR TRYING TO INVADE EVERYBODYS <br />LIFES.....FIRST OF ALL WITHOUT ANY RYME OR REASON.<br />AND SECOND OF ALL ITS ILLEGAL SINCE THEY HAVE NO<br />LEAGAL AUTHORITY WHATS SO EVER SINCE THEY WERE NEVER PART OF OR APPOINTED BY ANY LEGAL OFFICE OF<br />AUTHORITY OF ANY STATE OR CITY WHAT SO EVER NOR<br />BY ANY COURT FOR THAT MATTER EITHER...BUT INSTEAD<br />APPOINTED THEM SELFS THIS POSSITION..WHICH IS A <br />FORM OF NOT ONLY HARRASMENT BUT STALKING AS WELL<br /> ITS ALSO INVASION OF PRIVACY AND NOT ONLY THAT<br />IF THEY ROTATE IP ADDRESSES THERES NO WAY THEY CAN PROVE THAT ITS YOUR IP ADDRESS TO BEGIN WITH<br />YOU KNOW ITS ALSO A FORM OF DISCRIMINATION AS WELL<br />BY PROFILING AS WELL BY TARGETING 1 TYPE OF PEOPLE<br />AND IN THIS CASE ITS PEOPLE WHO THEY THINK ARE DOWNLOADING ILEAGALY.... AND ALSO THE RECORDING <br />ARTISTS DID NOT GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO DO THIS<br />EITHER YET THEY STILL DO IT WHY BECAUSE THEY CAN<br />INTIMIDATE CERTAIN PEOPLE TO CONFESSING TO WHAT<br />EVER THEY WANT WHEATHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT SO THEY HAVE SOMONES IP ADDRESSES THEY WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO GET THEM FOR WHAT CAUSE AND REASON<br />AND HOW DID THEY COME TO SUSPECT THAT THEY WERE RIGHT ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO TAKE SOMEONE TO COURT<br />YOU HAVE TO BE IVESTIGATED FOR AT LEAST 6 MONTHS<br />AND YOU HAVE TO BE NOTIFYED THAT YOU ARE BEING<br />INVESTIGATED AS WELL ITS ILEAGAL... BECAUSE THEY<br />CAN'T JUST VIOLATE YOUR PRIVACY NOT ONLY THAT BUT<br />THATS COMPUTER BURGLERY AS WELL EVEN COPS NEED<br />PROBREBO CAUSE JUST TO START A INVESTIVGATION<br />EVEN THEN HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT IT WAS EVEN YOU<br />AND NOT SOMEONE ELSE WHO USED YOUR COMPUTER AS WELL SO YOU HAVE A IP ADDRESS WHOS TO SAY THAT ITS NOT ON SOMEONE ELSES COMPUTER AS WELL....<br />AND WHAT DID THEY SAY TO GET THOSE SUBPENIAS FROM THOSE JUDGES BECAUSE MOST OF THEM WILL NOT GIVE YOU ONE UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOU CAN WIN <br />WITH A GUARRENTEED OUT COME IN YOUR FAVOR<br />AS WELL

[handydan918]

CAPS LOCK STUCK?

The solution to the RIAA is to stop buying music. <br />It's all about the money.Even a short boycott would drive the point home better than <br /><br />SHOUTING<br /><br />in a tech forum...

[blkno3]

Spell check!!!

Please, if you are going to post something, at least use spell check!!!

[Carboglace]

DiaRIAA strikes again

People need to spread the word about private p2p file sharing as it's 100% legal and lets friends share with each other safely. See GigaTribe for an example of one great app: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.gigatribe.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.gigatribe.com</a>

[ColdMast]

Someone needs to put a leash around the RIAA.

tracking people's online activity is only going to "upset" us privacy nuts off.<br /><br />I think RIAA should put a stop bands from doing covers.<br /><br />If the RIAA had their way CDs would cost $100 and be blatant with DRM, and you could only listen to them once and then they would disintegrate, and you would have to go get another.<br /><br />I've used the Internet to get back music that was scratched to $#!%, do I feel guilty, no: I'm supposed to own the rights to listen to it.<br /><br />RIAA, start putting TDK's durabis on CDs then we'll talk.<br /><br />message to all bands affiliated with the RIAA, start selling more t-shirts.

[Lamppost0]

RE: Beer pong

Declan, what possessed you to find that beer pong tidbit? Also, <br />would lighting a beer pong ball on fire really result in it going <br />ablaze? Beer isn't alcoholic enough for that. Maybe she was playing <br />beer pong with Bacardi 151?<br /><br />All these questions .... head spinning ...

[declan00]

You're right

I suspect that beer pong has evolved over time in the hallowed halls of academe at George Washington University. Perhaps it started with beer and progressed to more interesting, and flammable, substances.

[rdupuy11]

RIAA - Sony suing students again.

Forget about talking about RIAA and the members who are really behind it not getting a bad rap.<br /><br />I'm singling out Sony has a member of the RIAA with a large marketshare.<br /><br />Shame on you Sony - RIAA for suing college students and single mothers, falsing using laws aimed at racketeers for this fight.<br /><br />Shame on you Sony.

[hassan_bin_sober]

RIAA

Having to go at this using a bunch of Lamniforme, (look it up!) lawyers is NOT the way to damage the RIAA heart. A large caliber firearm projectile launched in that direction is the preferred method of negotiation with the industry Pharisees; this they will understand! Give them, (the RIAA) a bloody nose for starters, ...then take no prisoners!

[cjwall67]

It's way too late to protest.

The last time I had the nerve to state the following, I received a <br />lot of crap replies for it: People are complaining as if the RIAA is <br />going after poor innocent victims who only gave the occasional <br />song file to a friend. As soon as you create an organized system <br />of file sharing, you admit that your intent is to move large <br />amounts of material. When you structure that system with a <br />specific file type in mind (i.e.: mP3 music files), you shouldn't be <br />surprised that RIAA would have a problem with it. Yes, CDs cost <br />too much. Yes, they should be more durable. Yes, artists should <br />receive more of the money. Yes, the recording industry is a <br />faceless machine only interested in shareholder profit. Because <br />these things are true, certain persons feel it is their right, nay, <br />their duty, to steal (sorry, that's what it is when you don't pay for <br />it) their music online. That logic would justify someone <br />wandering into your home and taking YOUR stuff because they <br />think it's unfair that YOU have it. Come to think of it, that <br />seems to be a pretty prevalent outlook these days, but I digress.<br /> In terms of copyright, I do feel that RIAA is not allowing free <br />enough use of the music that IS purchased. If I have purchased <br />a CD or an online album, I should be allowed to use it in <br />multiple devices or media, provided that it is for my use and <br />enjoyment, and not being distributed en masse to my loser <br />online buddies who can't be bothered to buy it themselves. <br />Today's reality is that technology has provided a number of ways <br />to enjoy music or other entertainment files, and convenient <br />usage of those dictates that there will be more than one copy in <br />existence in my vehicles, home, or personal player units. I still <br />possess the originals, but do not regularly use them in order to <br />preserve them, and it is the possession of the original file source <br />that is the key to all of it. This is reasonable usage, and not <br />worthy of prosecution. If RIAA would officially and legally <br />confirm that this type of personal usage is not a problem, then it <br />would be easy enough to convince the public at large that they <br />are well within their rights to prosecute those who effect large-<br />scale file sharing and distribution through an organized system. <br />As to the university students, I seem to recall stories about <br />servers at a number of schools getting completely plugged up <br />because of P2P activity, so much so that they had to take steps <br />to ban it. Don't pretend to not know why RIAA is doing this, and <br />please stop with the "single mothers and the poor" B.S. They <br />can afford a computer and an internet connection, and seem to <br />have the time and knowledge needed to use them, so enough of <br />the rhetoric. It's exactly like speeding; you usually don't get <br />caught, so you actually start thinking that the law doesn't apply <br />to you. Eventually you get pulled over and try to convince the <br />officer that they are wrong to victimize you this way. Result: <br />ticket. Do it over and over again and it turns out the same.<br /> RIAA's tactics are heavy-handed, but I bet they will withstand <br />the constitutional challenge being suggested. What should be <br />protested is the fact that they are not going after the persons <br />who initiated the sharing of the files in the first place. Being a <br />link in a long chain has less liability than whatever source point <br />that chain is anchored to. Those persons are more deserving of <br />the scrutiny, but it's unlikely that they could be easily found, so <br />RIAA will go after those it CAN easily identify. Like I said at the <br />beginning, it's way too late to protest.

[holzfaller]

Agreed

I agree with your assessment, clwall67. As a creator of original content I would be upset if others were taking my creation and sending on to others for free without any benefit coming back to reward me for my talent, originality and for the entertainment benefit that the end user receives.<br /><br />The heavy handed approach by the RIAA is a direct result of a recording industry that has shown unwillingness to offer up distribution methods that suit technology and the consumer.<br /><br />They have painted themselves into a corner and are now lashing out. I don't agree with stealing music or anything else. But the dinosaur that is the RIAA and its members are doomed in the long run, especially if they refuse to acknowledge consumer desires.

[feliks2]

off by a decade or more

"please stop with the 'single mothers and the poor' B.S. They can afford a computer and an internet connection, and seem to have the time and knowledge needed to use them, so enough of the rhetoric."<br /><br />Wait, so you have to be rich to own a computer and have internet access now? And you have to be a genius with loads of free time on your hands to download and use a simple program ?

[Travis Ernst]

Was that an error?

Did you happen to notice that 5 of the John Doe's had the SAME IP <br />address? That could possibly mean a hub or library, even Wi-Fi.<br /><br />You have to do better than giving the same IP address claiming it is <br />5 different people. That alone in MY eyes is reasonable doubt.

[declan00]

same IP address

Yep, same IP address. It wasn't an error on my part; I just copied from the court documents.<br /><br />I don't think it's an error on the RIAA's part, either. The most likely scenarios are that: (a) it's the same person and the RIAA listed too many John Does or (b) it's a different person because the IP address is reassigned every few hours.