Slashdot Mirror

Ok, so the RIAA's modus operandi seems to be filing suit against someone living half way across the country. If someone in California is charged for file sharing in New York (like what happened here, what can they do to stop this? Doesn't our justice system prevent this we-know-you're-not-going-to-come-all-the-way-over- here-so-just-settle-out-of-court strategy?

Somehow I don't feel at all threatened by the MPAA, the RIAA and the like. I have nothing whatsoever to worry about from them.

Yes, of course, because we all know that if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Already done it looks like: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7767. I seem to recall a /. article as well about it.
Though this one is under Oregon's RICO statute, and not at the federal.

Mycroft

http://wwww.p2pnet.net/ is a website deicated to filesharing news. The owner of the website, Jon Newton, runs the website and barely breaks even. He subscibed to Google's adsense in order to generate some revenue. When a story about a filesharing lawsuit broke in the lamescream news, an article in p2pnet was referenced. This article generate a huge number of visits and therefore a much larger than usual number of adsense clicks. Rather than pay what was owed to Jon, Google accused Jon of click fraud and even showed information implying his guilt. Google continues to ignore Jon's request for information relating to this accusation and refuses to communicate with him to clear things up.

You can read about it at http://www.p2pnet.net/story/9086 . This has happened not only to Jon Newton but also to many other small website owners. I am a Geek who used to love using Google, but now that Google has become big, it is doing what most other big companies do - screw the small guy and just walk away. Needless to say, I use alternative search engines instead.

http://wwww.p2pnet.net/ is a website deicated to filesharing news. The owner of the website, Jon Newton, runs the website and barely breaks even. He subscibed to Google's adsense in order to generate some revenue. When a story about a filesharing lawsuit broke in the lamescream news, an article in p2pnet was referenced. This article generate a huge number of visits and therefore a much larger than usual number of adsense clicks. Rather than pay what was owed to Jon, Google accused Jon of click fraud and even showed information implying his guilt. Google continues to ignore Jon's request for information relating to this accusation and refuses to communicate with him to clear things up.

You can read about it at http://www.p2pnet.net/story/9086 . This has happened not only to Jon Newton but also to many other small website owners. I am a Geek who used to love using Google, but now that Google has become big, it is doing what most other big companies do - screw the small guy and just walk away. Needless to say, I use alternative search engines instead.

And watching the court decide not to ask AT&T whether they're illegally spying on us could give residents of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities. If we were paying attention.

Sounds similar to the RIAA case against Candy Chan of Michigan, for the actions of her 13 year old daughter, Brittany Chan. The court ruled the mother could not be sued for the actions of her daughter.

See Priority v. Chan

Basically it sounds like you have to sue the person who allegedly committed the offence. The RIAA needs to refile against the right person.

If someone phones in a bomb threat, you prosecute the person who made the call, not the person who pays the phone bill, right?

>it's hard to argue that a vague notion of "privacy" is more important then staying alive and safe.

There are two ways to explain this to people.

One is that mass eavesdropping hurts real security. If the FBI is checking out Domino's Pizza then they're not checking flight schools or infiltrating violent groups. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9000515

The reason privacy is important is that government agencies with impossible missions tend to start hassling easy targets to make up for not being able to reach the important ones. How many of those average people have uploaded or downloaded music? How many of them realize that copyright infringers have been accused of funding terrorism?

Without privacy and due process protections, the guy in the high rise will be in more danger of becoming a terrorist suspect than of beomcing a terrorist victim.

check this article http://p2pnet.net/story/9103

Remember that admiral Poindexter with his Total Information Awareness (TIA) programme? It looks as if his ideas have been implemented from the first to the last. Links: http://www.p2pnet.net/issue03/page1.html and http://www.p2pnet.net/issue05/page1.html

Remember that admiral Poindexter with his Total Information Awareness (TIA) programme? It looks as if his ideas have been implemented from the first to the last. Links: http://www.p2pnet.net/issue03/page1.html and http://www.p2pnet.net/issue05/page1.html

Tanya Andersen happens to be doing just that:

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7767
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6445

Tanya Andersen happens to be doing just that:

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7767
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6445

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32082
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060531-6949 .html
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/business/14707951.h tm
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8923
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20 060531084202128

Want some more? I dare say they are easy to find.

Apple doesn't pay any money to the RIAA when a song is sold on iTMS. They pay the record company that holds the rights to the song (the one they licensed distribution rights from). The RIAA is a trade organization not a corporation....

From this article. I remember reading this in the Toronto Star as well, which I haven't forgotten since:


The Barenaked Ladies' Ed Robertson also wades in with, "I'm totally fine with people downloading music, as long as they steal everything that they want. If you want pants, go steal them. If you need gas in your car, you should steal it, because you can. As long as people are consistent I don't have a problem. As long as they see themselves as thieves in general then I don't mind if they steal everything that they like. But it irks me that it's only okay to steal music."


So at least one of them is against sharing/downloading.

And yet cases are going against them, and further lawsuits are being brought against them, in their overzealous pursuit of profit:

• RIAA Chan case dismissal
• High Court Bounces Latest RIAA Effort
• RIAA lawyers bully witnesses into perjury
• Oregon RIAA Victim Fights Back; Sues RIAA for Electronic Trespass, Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse, Invasion of Privacy, RICO, Fraud

It's not in the millions by any stretch, but as these things gain momentum, the RIAA is going to be defending itself on a thousand fronts and undoubtedly as more and more cases make their way into the headlines, they will find themselves on the losing end, as more and more people abandon CDs and pick up music for free on-line.

It's not a victory yet, but this could be the biggest blow, if it's found that RIAA members were busy fudging the evidence to get their own way. If they're in the right, why the deception? Because they know they have alosing battle on their hands unless they stack the deck. This one thing may come back to bite them hard.

So what happens to you if you say FU to the RIAA and refuse to pay? I am wondering if any poor college students just refused outright.

Do you go to jail? Do you have your house sold at auction?
Curious minds want to know.

So who is going to sue me when I design a gene to make Avastin and Herceptin? This will be the real test of our obsolete intellectual property regime, when the medical establishment's equivalent of the RIAA/MPAA sues cancer patients for synthesizing their own drugs, like the music industry is now suing your neighbor's kids.

Wow.. just look at Internet Explorer trying to use up all that disk space.

http://p2pnet.net/story/842/

Seems to me he has been at this for some time, I would not count him out just yet. A peer review of his work though would be good news.

Re: The lady maybe never touched the computer, but what about the kids? She's responsible for their actions!

You sure? Marie Lindor and Patricia Santangelo both live in New York.

"Today, all States but New Hampshire and New York have provisions holding parents civilly responsible for youth crime, with an average maximum recovery amount of $4,100." - Parent Responsibity Laws.
IANAL

In2Movies will use Arvato's new platform, called GNAB to deliver movies. GNAB adds security features onto the movies so they can't be pirated, makes sure the movie owners get paid each time a consumer on In2Movies buys a movie, and routes the movies through computers owned by In2Movies' users.

According to this article, GNAB is not really P2P. Any wagers as to how long it will be until GNAB is cracked?

Well, I know you say "the law is not a machine that can be gamed" and therefore any attempt to "win by technicality" is impossible (for us, presumably, since it seems the little guy's "technicality" is the big guy's "precedent-setting example.")

But, the other day, I was reading a defense filing in support of a motion to quash some of the RIAA subpoenas (in Atlantic Records v. Does). One of the arguments made is that the subpoenas should be quashed because the underlying complaint "fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Namely, that the plaintiffs hadn't set out sufficient proof that infringing acts took place. While, the plaintiffs offered lists of files that defendants had allegedly made available, it argues that such lists alone -- even if true -- do not prove that any actual infringing distribution took place. As a footnote, the defense addresses whether distribution to the plaintiffs themselves would "count":

Moreover, even if plaintiffs themselves (or their agents) did download actual copies of these recordings, such activity still would not involve distribution or dissemination "to the public" and thus would not constitute copyright infringement. U.S. Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc., 936 F.2d 692, 695 (2d Cir. 1991) ("It is elementary that the lawful owner of a copyright is incapable of infringing a copyright interest that is owned by him"); RSO Records v. Peri, 79 Civ. 5098, 1980 WL 1164 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 5, 1980) (complaint alleging that plaintiffs participated in reproduction and distribution of infringing copies failed to state valid infringement claim against defendants; "a copyright owner cannot infringe his own copyright"); Higgins v. Detroit Education Television Foundation, 4 F.Supp.2d 701, 705 (E.D.Mich. 1998) ("[a] plaintiff may not claim to have been damaged by reason of a defendant's sale of alleged infringing copies if the copies were sold to plaintiff's agent because such a sale prevents the distribution of such copies to the general public").

So, at least some lawyers think it is insufficient for the copyright holder to show only that he was able to download copies.

This probably also applies to the corporate sponsors of bills like the proposed law regarding analog hole who seem to be employing curious tactics, which if you think of it is merely an effort to protect the intellectgual property. With typical bad results. And which will provoke a strong reaction in some quarters once it becomes well known.

I know we should try to be rational. Sometimes this is hard to do.

Link here

Copyright infringement without profit motive is a new crime. It was invented in 1997 with the No Electronic Theft Act. Since that time, approximately 13,000 people have been sued by the RIAA for sharing music files online. In each case, defendants face penalties that do not fit the crime, are being threatened with evidence that is shaky at best, and are required to spend enormous amounts of money to defend themselves if they feel they are innocent.

Look at Mrs. Santangelo for an example. She has spent $24,000 defending herself rather than settling for $7,500. If she is guilty, she'd have to be insanely stupid to do that, no? At this point, she has run out of money to pay for representation and has been left to defend herself in court. The RIAA can afford this fight, a single mother of five cannot. She had an interview on CNN's American Morning with Miles O'Brien over the holidays. O'Brien's lead-ins were assuming guilt for thirty minutes before she ever got a chance to speak. Once she finally did get her say, she defended her innocence, and the last word was given to Cary Sherman, RIAA President.

What Miles failed to tell the audience was that CNN's parent company, AOL Time Warner, is a member of the RIAA. She was being interviewed without legal representation, on national TV, by the prosecution on the prosecution's terms. He also failed to mention that her service provider (AOL-CNN's parent company-RIAA member) stands to benefit directly from a successful lawsuit/settlement and is providing the one shaky piece of evidence the prosecution has presented: An IP address.

As you can see from the linked article, they knew who they were suing before they approached her. They knew she was a poor defenseless prole rather than someone in 'the family' or someone important like a Senator. So you decide: Is the RIAA just being "reasonably upset" or are they extorting money from defenseless Americans?

Here's a pdf link that works:
http://www.p2pnet.net/stuff/atlantic_does1-25_ziaf fidavit.pdf

(found via google news, google for the guys' name)

http://www.p2pnet.net/stuff/atlantic_does1-25_ziaf fidavit.pdf

This case has the potential to set a valuable precedent, either in law or at least in the public image of the RIAA and their jihad against file-sharers.

Even if a lawyer volunteered his/her services, the party must also pay costs. Yes, where is the EFF?

I will contribute what I can afford if I find a way. There certainly is a large enough population who read about these issues, and would like to see her win, that if each gave, say, $25 it would amount to thousands.

There is talk of a defense fund at p2pnet. The article says they're waiting on a script (?!) but I'd settle for a p.o. box.

I disagree. According to this article Quanta plans to start shipping in Q4 of 2006 if it can reach acceptable arrangements with component suppliers.

So if you're designing a CD DRM system based on active protection, you face two main technical problems:

1. You have to get your software installed, even though the user doesn't want it.

2. Once your software is installed, you have to keep it from being uninstalled, even though the user wants it gone.

These are the same two technical problems that spyware designers face.

You can read the rest of his fascinating article here.

In p2pnet's interview with Patricia Santangelo, she said she's "stressed" about funds for her defenses, but doesn't have an account for donations.

However, Santangelo is listed, in case anyone wants to snail-mail her some help.

Santangelo lives about ten minutes from me. I'm going to try to round up some friends to picket and toss eggs and CDs at the RIAA scumbags on her day in court!

Videotron also has a dark side.
http://p2pnet.net/story/1029

http://p2pnet.net/story/7124

Where did you get that? Not from TFA

Sorry, I didn't read the linked article, it's true. I was getting that from an article that I had seen on p2pnet.net yesterday: http://p2pnet.net/story/6799.

I was assuming that since the BBC article was on the same topic and drawing from the same source, it would say similar things. Guess my assumption was wrong -- my bad.

Here's the quote I was referring to, if you're interested: "If you have a window titled 'WoW!Inmate,' "regardless of what that window really does, it could result in a ban. If you can't believe it, make a dummy window that does nothing at all and name it this, then start WoW. It certainly will result in warden reporting you as a cheater."

and for the record, I do know what a hash function is :)

Site seems slow already, the story is also covered here: http://p2pnet.net/story/6620

Perhaps it will cut down on all the spam I get from .ru, .bx, .fr and other domains.

Because the sender address is never faked?

America is the worst offender so us non-americans will hopefully see a nice drop in spam.

http://p2pnet.net/story/3773

"In its biggest cock-up yet, the Big Music cartel's RIAA has sued a dead woman who didn't even own a computer."

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/8133

And there are more.

From the session records:
"Plaintiff's [RIAA] motion to Amend Judment [the judment of dismissal of the case to allow RIAA to proceed against Brittany Chan (the daughter)] is hereby DENIED."

So yes it is kind of FUD. They tried to go afater her, but it was denied.

The two session records are interesting and short (I understood overall and IANAL)

From the session records:
"Plaintiff's [RIAA] motion to Amend Judment [the judment of dismissal of the case to allow RIAA to proceed against Brittany Chan (the daughter)] is hereby DENIED."

So yes it is kind of FUD. They tried to go afater her, but it was denied.

The two session records are interesting and short (I understood overall and IANAL)

Ms. Anderson is one of the mothers previously mentioned who is taking a stand against the RIAA. (Slashdot article, direct link) She was sued by the RIAA, and after offering up her computer to their investigators and explainging that she did not and could not have shared those file, the suit was dropped, only to picked up a short time later by another member of the RIAA.

From the article:

"I have the least expensive computer system you can buy from Dell. The type you order off television for $499.00. It was purchased in the summer of 2002 and has the smallest hard drive they make. I have no cd writer on it and the cd-rom that I do have, does not even work correctly.

"I live alone with my 8-year-old daughter (who would have been seven at the time the alleged occurrence took place). I am a single mom who is disabled and unable to work. I live on Social Security disability and struggle to support my daughter and myself. If I am put in a position where I need to defend myself regarding this situation, it would create extreme financial hardship on me. I have no money and did not do what is being said. I also must admit that all this stuff that has been occurring with this whole ordeal has triggered my medical condition to flare lately.

"I have always been against music downloading. In fact, I have been a member of BMG's music club for quite some time and I purchase my music either from there or from Target. When I first got my computer set up almost three years ago, I had a friend set it up for me since I did not know how to do it. She had put Kaaza Lite on there and told me what it was. I never used it and had no interest in doing so. I deleted it since I had no use for it. Even though I deleted it correctly, as is recommended by Microsoft, Mr. Eilers has told me it can hide out in my system and play without me knowing about it. I have done a total check
of my computer and it is no where on there.

"These files you are speaking accusing me of sharing (which Mr. Eiler told me about), are not and never have been on my computer system. Several of those artists, I have never even heard of! One, I understand, is a rap song. I am 42-years-old and do not even like rap music. The login that this person who did this apparently used, which Mr. Eiler told me of, is not a login name I have ever used or heard of.

"There is no one at my household who could have done what is being said at all. Mr. Eiler had brought up the fact that maybe a babysitter could have done it and that is impossible because I seldom have a sitter since I can't afford to pay one and am usually home."

Just imagine!
Picking up hookers would be much more FUN!
hmmmm, well, I meant in GTA actually :D

Assuming they have a prom (or something similar), maybe the Dutch will incorporate this into their new cradle-to-grave profiling system.

http://p2pnet.net/story/6273

On the fence on this one myself, but this does seem to ligitmize them a bit more:
http://cesweb.org/attendees/awards/innovations/rd_ 2005honorees.asp?category=48

Now... they do have a crappy website and the optical 1/8" jack "memory modules" tickle the crap out of me, but it looks like this may actually have some legs.

Also see the under-the-hood photos at: http://p2pnet.net/story/6160

I'm sure Thomas Edison's first light bulb experiments didn't look all that ligitimate either...

cheers,
Levendis47

I still cannot convince myself that this isn't a hoax... but here's some actually coherent info on the laptop:

World's first solid state laptop?

Atom Chip Corporation Reveal Ultra Fast 6.8GHz Laptop

There's a good interview with the lawyer at http://p2pnet.net/story/6062.

Though, no doubt the RIAA will probably throw some legal weight onto this case soon (I'm surprised they didn't do it already, but the defendant's lawyer says RIAA still has junior lawyers on the case).

Longhorn/Vista will be a dream for hollywood studios wanting to lock you down so much for selling points.

I hate to contradict parent poster (ok I don't really) but this WILL NOT BE A PORTABLE MOVIE PLAYER. I'm not sure that a video iPod would get hacked, (there is still no OGG support on iPods, so why would MPEG2 support be so forthcoming??).

This functionality will only be for crap quality .mov music videos. The quality will be crap so that no one feeds it to a TV and so file downloads and transfers to iPod don't take forever. Think 320 X 480 tops.

Even if someone did hack it to play divx, it won't be useful because of the weakenss of the CPU. Uploading higher res video won't play, not because of codecs, but because apple (if they know what is good for them) there won't be enough cpu cycles. MPEG4 (a la DIVX/XVID) is especially cpu intensive, which is why it is so compressed.

See here for some other reasons, but this is not what you think it is.