RIAA can't get student's name

Almost two weeks ago, a federal judge rejected a request to reveal the identities of two UNC-system students accused of music-swapping practices that violate copyright law.

But the Recording Industry Association of America, which first filed lawsuits against the students two years ago, might try a second approach.

On April 14, Judge Russell Eliason of the U.S. District Court in Winston-Salem rejected the RIAA’s request to reveal the names of the two students. Currently, the RIAA has only their online aliases.

Eliason’s decision was made public Thursday.

The two students, whose aliases are “hulk” and “CadillacMan,” are enrolled at UNC-Chapel Hill and N.C. State University, respectively.

Both are targets of a process the RIAA initiated two years ago, when it subpoenaed UNC-CH and N.C. State. It was seeking the individuals’ names under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

But because the music files are stored on students’ computers and not the universities’ networks, Eliason wrote, the schools do not have to offer the information.

“These are old cases,” said Jenni Engebretsen, spokeswoman for the RIAA. Now, she said, “We are using an entirely different process.”

Known as “John Doe” litigation, that process has been used in several other RIAA cases since January 2004.

If the RIAA pursues the case, Engebretsen said, it will first file a lawsuit identifying defendants only by their IP addresses. The association would then file a subpoena for the names and attach them to the addresses. “We are currently considering our options,” she said.

The crutch of Eliason’ s decision not to hold the two universities accountable rests on the fact that the networks they provide were used to transmit songs, not to store the songs themselves.

“The nature of the University as a service provider is that we would only have that data on our system in a transitory way,” said David Parker, senior associate counsel for UNC-CH.

Parker said that Eliason ruled the subpoena invalid because the copyright act used by the RIAA “simply did not apply under the circumstances because the information alleged to be infringement could not have been present on our system.”

Aden Fine, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing the UNC-CH student, said the RIAA did not follow a normal subpoena process in this case.

“Their whole argument was that they needed a shortcut,” he said.

“What they issued is a statutory subpoena. No judge ever views their request.”

In this case, the RIAA went straight to the clerk of court — instead of the judge — to have its subpoena issued without any discretion, Fine said. “This case isn’t about copyright infringement,” he said. “It’s simply about due process.”

If convicted of direct copyright infringement, the minimum penalty is $750 per infringed work, Engebretsen said.

The average settlement for direct copyright infringement totals between $3,500 and $4,500.

“We normally settle these cases for less,” Engebretsen said.

While the future of RIAA’s involvement in the case is uncertain, the association says it will continue to pursue violators.

“The outcome of this particular case will do nothing to change our efforts going forward,” Engebretsen said. “We can and will continue to bring these cases and determine the identities of those involved.”

Contact the University Editor at udesk@unc.edu.