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!"
The DMCA not infinite-reaching? Time to rewrite it or get a refund - they didn't get what they paid for!
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
He makes a lot of good points, and the gist of it is that the RIAA's case is pretty poorly made. But that's something that most people already know, maybe even including the RIAA. Thing is, they don't have to win in order to be effective. They could get creamed in court and it still wouldn't matter. All they have to do is scare the living bejezus out of a handful of people and they'll get what they're after. Aiming a multi-billion dollar lawsuit at one student has a pretty sobering effect on anybody that's nearby and watching, and the RIAA has the resources to file suit all day and night, win or lose.
Of course, based on some of the numbers that have been coming out over the last few years, they might actually stand to gain more by collecting the $96 billion from this one guy than by ending file sharing.
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.
Challenging the legality of this case applies to Joesph Nievelt too. He had 1100 mp3 on his system, unlike the 650,000 that the RIAA stated. While Napster could *only* be used to search for mp3's this search and index tool is used for a lot of files other than mp3's.
Speaking as a present MTU student, if Joseph is expelled then MTU will be loosing a very talented programmer.He was ranked 4th in the nation in the Top Coder competition
Top Coder MTU News
Based on the article the RIAA claims have serious flaws. I dont doubt that the wake system did 'facilitate' illegal sharing of material by making it easier to find if noting else but it does not seem to fit many of the criteria to satisfy the claims. From what I cam make of the article it almost looks as if MS are much much to blame for providing the file transfer infrastructure !!
Given the way things are going though I think its only a question of time before the network and infrastructure admins are the ones held liable for the software running on their systems. Massive lawsuits against students are ridiculous and will damage public perception. How long before they go after the universities etc who at least will have insurance to cover the financial claims.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Every 142th american is in jail now... You want to increase the number?
Lawsuite like this are why I gave up downloading music and moved onto downloading only porn...
Yes, but he wanted to know how artists feel.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
"I'm sure that at least some of the artists being shared are among the 90% or so of musical artists that are in favor of file sharing;"
... where did you get numbers like that?? Do you honestly think that 90% of musical artists agree with distribution of their music without getting paid for it (regardless of whether they get a lot or a little)? C'mon now...
BAHAHAHA
Who doesn't like free music?
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.
So, lets compare. In the OJ suit (the civil, not the criminal), he fined less than a hundred million for murder. Four students get fined about a hundred billion for setting up a file sharing network. Another case is Microsoft. For alleged monopoly practices, there were discussions of fining them several billion, not a hundred billion. But maybe the RIAA is correct: four students will start the end of the free world, so it is good to ruin their lives and make an example of them for any other doomsday followers.
here is the google cache of wake.princeton.edu.