In all, court exhibits filed last Wednesday in the U.S. District Court Northern District of New York and obtained electronically by The Polytechnic identified 29 RPI Internet Protocol Addresses. There were a total of three separate suits filed that listed the defendants as “Does 1-25,” “John Doe,” and “Does 1-3.” The plaintiffs are not the MPAA and RIAA, but rather, they are the individual record or motion picture companies who own the copyrights to the files that were allegedly shared.

According to the complaints, the defendants are identified in the corresponding court exhibits by IP address along with the date and time of the alleged infringing activities. The exhibits list copyrighted items that each individual was allegedly sharing. The plaintiffs in these cases ask the courts to subpoena user identities from the Internet Service Provider (RPI) based on listed time-stamped IP addresses.

Dean of Students Mark Smith said Tuesday that the 25 IP addresses cited by the RIAA suit had been traced to 24 individual students. He said his office would be notifying them Tuesday by e-mail. He added that as of present time, the identities of the students have not been released.

Smith stated during the interview that RPI had not yet received the list of IPs cited in the motion picture suits. The list of four RPI IP addresses obtained by The Poly from court documents that were enumerated in these motion picture suits can be viewed in the table below, along with timestamps.

IP Addresses listed in motion picture company lawsuits
Host name	IP Address	Approximate Location	Date	Time
seaking-11 .dynamic.rpi.edu	128.113.145.230	ResNET (E-Dorms, North Hall, Quad)	2005-03-24	2:12 am
metapod-08 .dynamic.rpi.edu	128.113.196.17	ResNET (Freshman Hill)	2005-04-03	2:29 pm
shocking-pink-03 .dynamic2.rpi.edu	128.113.55.3	Unknown	2005-03-30	8:59 am
nidorino-44 .dynamic.rpi.edu	128.113.152.53	ResNET (BARH, RHAP, Sunset Terrace)	2005-03-06	7:07 pm

The civil suits are being filed over sharing which occurred on i2hub which uses Internet2. In a media teleconference last week, the president of the RIAA, Cary Sherman, said that many students had mistakenly assumed that their actions on I2 could not be traced.

One student whose IP Address was listed in the suit and who wished to remain anonymous said that he had heard he may have been on the list from a friend. He said his first reaction was to think, “figures.” They pointed out that he was sharing over 300 gigabytes of movies, music, and pirated software. They explained, “I knew that I would be a good target. I knew what I was doing.”

The student said, “The big issue is how did the RIAA get on the network,” to obtain the information on the alleged infringing activities. While the RIAA would not specify their investigative techniques last week, The Boston Globe reported that Dean Garfield, the vice president and director of legal affairs for the MPAA, said that they purchased a special i2hub membership service allowing users to connect from a standard Internet1 connection.

The student stated that, while they are no longer sharing their music, they are still sharing their movies and programs. “In an idealistic world, music is an art form and art is intended to be shared,” they added. The student said that in his view, file sharing is not hurting the artist, but rather, just spreads their art; he did not believe that artists make a significant amount from recordings.

The student said that he at one time thought colleges stood for change, “but maybe those days are gone.” They would like to see colleges support their students by challenging the authority of the subpoenas. The student added that RPI’s motto is “Why not change the world?” and asked why no one seems to be considering the possibility of file sharers being right. The student explained that he believes many things are moving toward open source and sharing initiatives in which everyone benefits, and added, “This is just another step in that path.”

The student said they were planning to meet with Dean Smith, who had encouraged those who believe they may be identified in the suits to contact his office. Smith said that the individuals identified in the suits would not face student judicial action. His advice to the students who are identified in the suits is, “They need to get an attorney,” and follow through the legal process.