Slashdot Mirror
Analysis of RIAA vs Princeton Student
An anonymous reader submits: "Joe Barillari, a computer science student studying
under Prof.
Ed Felten, posted an analysis on his blog of
the lawsuit
filed by the RIAA against a Princeton college student for running "Napster-like" networks. He
argues that the case doesn't quite live up to its contributory infringement
claim due to limitations in the DMCA. A good
read!"
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued Dan Peng, a Princeton sophomore, for direct and contributory infringement of their members' copyrights. This essay analyzes that contributory infringement claim. Peng allegedly operated a computer service called "wake" which cataloged the publicly-shared files on the campus network. The RIAA draws a parallel between "wake" and Napster, and calls upon the court to apply the reasoning from the Napster case. Their analysis falls short in three respects:
1. "Wake" differs fundamentally from Napster in that it (allegedly) indexed a pre-existing network, just as Web search engines index the pre-existing web. Napster, on the other hand, created the network on which its users traded music.
2. Napster's software indexed and shared only MP3 audio files. Wake, on the other hand, (allegedly) indexed all public documents on the network, which substantially expands its range of non-infringing uses.
3. "Wake," as a pure search engine (rather than a search-engine-plus-file-sharing-system, as Napster was), is protected by the DMCA, a fact which the RIAA does not address.
Looks like the guy wrote an indexing service for Windows SMB file shares on the local LAN. Made it real easy to copy mp3's from everyone elses systems. But that's just it, the same thing could be accomplished with start>search>files & folders, this just simplified that by indexing everything so you wouldn't have to go comp by comp.
Doesn't look like they have a leg to stand on. They just need to hope for a relatively intelligent judge and/or jury, depending on how far this goes.
As a student at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, I recieved a rather lengthy education in the facets of Copyright Law (which is essential when producing creative works). While my knowledge pales in comparison to Mr. Barillari's, I can safely say that the RIAA has no case against Mr. Peng.
The basis of Copyright Law is simple: A copyrighted work can not be used to make money by anyone but the copyright holder. If Mr. Peng were "bootlegging" copyrighted music - ie Making CDs and selling them for a personal profit - then yes, he would be in violation of Copyright Law. But this wasn't the case.
WAKE, the program Mr. Peng used to index publically available files on the campus network, is not a file trading system, like Napster or Kazaa. Like Google, it's just a search engine. All it does is let you know what's out there and where. To download something you find using WAKE, you'ld have to go about it in some other manner.
Also, the nearly 650,000 files that the RIAA claim's Peng was distributing weren't all his. How can they sue him for something that's not his? It's yet another attempt at a power grab by a bunch of rich folks who only want to get richer. Sad.
My prediction: While the RIAA might get some considerations, they won't get anywhere near what they want. Peng won't see any jail time, and the RIAA will have a black eye.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
The president of Michigan Tech sent a letter to the RIAA offering his dissapointment about the whole fiasco -- in a politically correct way of course. Nice to know that although the University does try to uphold the DMCA, they officially disapprove of this newest stunt.
here is the google cache of wake.princeton.edu.
Napster did indeed offer indexing, but Napster created the network that was being indexed. So Napster was liable for the damages.
This network however, was a pre-existing Windows SMB file-sharing network, which could operate (and indeed did) without the WAKE-service he is being sued for.
See the difference? Its like Google should be held resposible for copyright infridgement, when they merely locate a site that breaks copyright law. The siteowner is the one that should be sued, not Google. And indeed noone sues Google, so why suit for this?
It's stupid, stupid, stupid and anyone within their right minds should be able to see that.
Which ofcourse excludes the RIAA completely.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.