Slashdot Mirror
Investigating the RIAA's Billion-Dollar Claims
zrosener writes "I've put together a site with a lot of information on the cases. I created
diagrams and explanations of the file sharing systems these students created
that the RIAA is suing them for - and how they are functionally and
technically very similar to Microsoft's tools built right into windows,
and how they are dissimilar from Napster's." Good detective work.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The artists will never see even the tiniest bit of the money. Check out this link and tell me how much of that money you think the actual artists are going to get: the problem with music by steve albini
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
Wow...thats bright.
The magnatism of your power lines is out of wack and now you have totaly lost your connection to the net.
Wish they would fix these silly power lines right so the broadband would give us the 2GB capacity.
1) /. server.
2) Claim inflated losses for each potential viewer lost * theoretical maximum recieved from each one.
3) Sue.
4) Profit!
Don't laugh. It's their real-world business model.
Tuition's high enough these days--there's no need for RIAA to go after these kids' with lasers strapped to their lawyers' heads... I wouldn't mind paying for SACD-quality recordings, if only I could buy them easily and efficiently (read: online, one click at a time).
why not establish mirrors before you submit to slashdot, especially if it's a self referral?
must like the slashdotting effect.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
aah crap sorry bout the formatting
another try:
This site contains information on the recent lawsuits filed by the RIAA against 4 college students for contributory and direct copyright infringement seeking damages of up to ninety seven billion eight hundred million dollars.
$97,800,000,000
Defendants
Defendant: Daniel Jonathan Peng
Princeton University, Sophomore
Quick Links
# Complaint - hosted by findlaw.com
# Analysis of the Complaint - written by Joseph Barillari
# Wake (Cached / Mirrored) - created by Daniel Peng
Daniel Jonathan Peng maintained and developed an application / website called "wake" that allowed users of the website: http://wake.princeton.edu (cached) to search for files shared on Princeton University's Local Area Network. It appears that Wake was a front end to a SMB file spider that searched and catalouged all "shared" files on computers connected to the Princeton's LAN. SMB, also known as Samba, is a file sharing protocol developed originaly by Microsoft. It is a widely used and established technology for sharing files between computers accross a network. RIAA charges include contributory copyright infringement accusing that Peng "has taken a network created for higher learning and academic pursuits and converted it into an emporium of music piracy where copyright infringement is simplified down to the click of a computer mouse", and of direct copyright infringement for "copying and distributing hundreds of sound recordings over his system without the authorization of the copyright owners". Fred Van Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, volunteered to represent Peng in court.
Defendant: Jesse Jordan
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Freshman
Quick Links
# Complaint - hosted by findlaw.com
# www.chewplastic.com (Cached / Mirrored) - created by Jesse Jordan
Jesse Jordan maintained and developed a website called "chewplastic" that allowed users of the website: http://ww.chewplastic.com (cached) to search for files shared on Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's Local Area Network. It appears that chewplastic.com deployed an application called "Phynd", also an SMB file spider, to search and catalouge all "shared" files on computers connected to the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's LAN. RIAA accuses Jesse Jordan of direct and contributory copyright infringement.
Defendant: Aaron Sherman
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Senior
Quick Links
# Complaint - hosted by findlaw.com
# www.flatlan.com (Cached / Mirrored) - created by Aaron Sherman under the direction of Mukkai Krishnamoorthy, Associate Proffessor of Computer Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Aaron Sherman under the direction of Associate Proffessor Mukkai Krishnamoorthy developed a network application called FlatLan. It is also an SMB file spider, designed to search and catalouge all "shared" files on computers connected a Local Area Network and capable of searching this catalouge through a web interface. The software was distributed for free and deployed on a many different school networks including Bryant College, Lehigh University, Michigan Tech, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Rice University, University of Texas, and Western New England College. The RIAA accuses Sherman of direct and contributory copyright infrigement. The complaint also states that Sherman "started a commercial enterprise to further profit from thee acts of infringement". The details to Shermans' "commercial enterprise" are shown a cache www.flatlan.com's "Products" page (cached) where he offers to sell "a complete Flatlan suite with unlimited FlatLan client licenses!". Apparently the RIAA took him up on this offer and through "trade association, have themselves purchased from the Defendant his software for $500".
Defendant: Joseph Nievelt
Michigan Technological University, hell of a coder
Quick Links
# Complaint - hosted by findlaw.com
As with so many other legal issues, it's a question of intent. With student-written file sharing systems, you are intentionally sharing your files with the whole world. With Windows File Sharing, you are unintentionally sharing your files with the whole world.
This site contains information on the recent lawsuits filed by the RIAA against 4 college students for contributory and direct copyright infringement seeking damages of up to ninety seven billion eight hundred million dollars.
$97,800,000,000
Defendants
Defendant: Daniel Jonathan Peng
Princeton University, Sophomore
Quick Links
# Complaint - hosted by findlaw.com
# Analysis of the Complaint - written by Joseph Barillari
# Wake (Cached / Mirrored) - created by Daniel Peng
Daniel Jonathan Peng maintained and developed an application / website called "wake" that allowed users of the website: http://wake.princeton.edu (cached) to search for files shared on Princeton University's Local Area Network. It appears that Wake was a front end to a SMB file spider that searched and catalouged all "shared" files on computers connected to the Princeton's LAN. SMB, also known as Samba, is a file sharing protocol developed originaly by Microsoft. It is a widely used and established technology for sharing files between computers accross a network. RIAA charges include contributory copyright infringement accusing that Peng "has taken a network created for higher learning and academic pursuits and converted it into an emporium of music piracy where copyright infringement is simplified down to the click of a computer mouse", and of direct copyright infringement for "copying and distributing hundreds of sound recordings over his system without the authorization of the copyright owners". Fred Van Lohmann, Senior Intellectual Property Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, volunteered to represent Peng in court.
Defendant: Jesse Jordan
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Freshman
Quick Links
# Complaint - hosted by findlaw.com
# www.chewplastic.com (Cached / Mirrored) - created by Jesse Jordan
Jesse Jordan maintained and developed a website called "chewplastic" that allowed users of the website: http://ww.chewplastic.com (cached) to search for files shared on Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's Local Area Network. It appears that chewplastic.com deployed an application called "Phynd", also an SMB file spider, to search and catalouge all "shared" files on computers connected to the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's LAN. RIAA accuses Jesse Jordan of direct and contributory copyright infringement.
Defendant: Aaron Sherman
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Senior
Quick Links
# Complaint - hosted by findlaw.com
# www.flatlan.com (Cached / Mirrored) - created by Aaron Sherman under the direction of Mukkai Krishnamoorthy, Associate Proffessor of Computer Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Aaron Sherman under the direction of Associate Proffessor Mukkai Krishnamoorthy developed a network application called FlatLan. It is also an SMB file spider, designed to search and catalouge all "shared" files on computers connected a Local Area Network and capable of searching this catalouge through a web interface. The software was distributed for free and deployed on a many different school networks including Bryant College, Lehigh University, Michigan Tech, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Rice University, University of Texas, and Western New England College. The RIAA accuses Sherman of direct and contributory copyright infrigement. The complaint also states that Sherman "started a commercial enterprise to further profit from thee acts of infringement". The details to Shermans' "commercial enterprise" are shown a cache www.flatlan.com's "Products" page (cached) where he offers to sell "a complete Flatlan suite with unlimited FlatLan client licenses!". Apparently the RIAA took him up on this offer and through "trade association, have themselves purchased from the Defendant his software for $500".
Defendant: Joseph Nievelt
Michigan Technological University, hell of a coder
Quick Links
# Complaint - hosted by findlaw.com
# www.mtu.flatlan.com (Cached / Mirrored) - created by Joseph Ni
Well, I haven't been able to read your site, as the server of course has been slashdotted, but I gather you have collated a list of similarities between the software in questions, and (legal) software which has already been out for a while.
Given that you made the effort to prepare this work, I suggest that you take it the final step and send it to the lawyers in charge of defending the students against this lawsuit by the RIAA, or if they have none yet, try to get it to their hands.
Oh, one more thing. You might want to send it anonymously; you never know, you might be sued next. (I'm only half-joking).
Any good legal team would know that a countersuit is in order in this case. They can sue and recover all of their legal fees straight from the RIAA. Do to the "in the press" nature of the lawsuits, these students can file suit for harrassment, defamation of character, etc. It should be easy to win this case assuming there are no hitches in the initial RIAA claims.
Besides, I bet there are some lawyers who would do this pro bono since it is a high profile case dealing with students who most certainly can't afford it.
The basis used by the RIAA for calculating damages in all these cases is fundamentally absurd. They take the number of copies, multiply by the highest recent retail they can find, and draw a big red circle around the result.
In order to accurately estimate the true damages, a little flashback to microeconomics class is in order.
Recall that for the combination of any given product and any given consumer, there is a price below which the consumer will buy it (sometimes that price will be zero or lower, but there is a price).
There is also a price below which the seller will not sell it.
The space between these two prices is where purchase transactions are viable.
So, in order to calculate the losses, we need two things:
The second of these is naturally much more complicated. Different buyers have different price thresholds. Across a population, the aggregate of these prices can be approximated with a function (I'll spare the math). This function can be estimated by using price elasticity data that sellers accumulate as part of their normal market analysis. Of course, it differs in different demographics so it's important to use a demographic that matches the arena in which the pirated material is distributed.
Once you have these two things, you can calculate the real losses quite simply. Say there were 1000 copies of something that the seller was willing to discount to $20 and had never sold for more than $30. Say further that the buyer curve for the distribution demographic was nice and simple, ranging from $0 to $50, with 80% below $20. Treating everything higher than $30 as $30 (since that's the highest price the product had been available for), you'd get something like $5000 in actual losses (forgive me, my back-of-the-napkin calculus is not good).
Meanwhile, the RIAA would claim that the loss was $30000, 6 times higher than reality.
The difference is explained by copies in the hands of people who would not have otherwise bought the product for a price at which the manufacturer was willing to sell it, and which therefore do not represent a legitimate market.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Hello RIAA, are you tired of beating up on little boys in college yet? I'm not trying to insinuate that you're bullies, just that there's some serious meat out there for you.
NetIQ has had a product called MP3 checker available for years, which does essentially the same thing as Wake, Phynd, and all the others. It even prints out a pretty list for you so that you don't have to run it over and over again.
Like I said, I know you're not just a bunch of effeminate bullies, so it won't phase you at all that NetIQ is a partner of Microsoft. Go sue!
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.