Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Student Sued by RIAA
TinoMNYY24 writes "Jesse Jordan, owner of chewplastic.com, was on CNN this morning discussing the RIAA settlement. You can read a poorly spelled transcript of the interview. Jesse is one of the two students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute that were sued by the RIAA."
"THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT."
I don't remember any Rush songs like this...
Compared to war, all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God, how I love it. - Gen. George Patton
First he gets sued by the RIAA, then his personal web site gets Slashdotted.
Ok, no discussion there of the settlement, ie how damages where determined, who will end up paying(students or someone else paying for them). Why they agreed to pay vs fighting.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
One of the big problems with our legal system is that it is easy to bully someone with a frivolous lawsuit when they can't afford the time or money to defend themselves. As the defendant pointed out, a lawsuit against AltaVista would have just as much justification behind it (little to none) but they didn't go after them because AltaVista can afford to defend themselves.
lysergically yours
Yes, it is, however you have to remember one thing: the RIAA are gouging us and the artists. No, it doesn't make it any more legal or less immoral, but you do have something to protect you from feeling guilty.
Let me get this straight...
This guy ran a search engine on his PC that essentially turned every particpating client PC into a single unit of a JBOD RAID array?
It would have been interesting to see the court case unfold if the guy had had the resources to fight
Where can I chip in to help out these guys?
So... I hear that those glass houses are a bitch to cool in the summertime. :-)
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Daniel Peng, one of the defendants at Princeton, may think that the lawsuit was "settled amicably", but I do not think that this is an "amicable" settlement. In fact, I am outraged. They will pay for what they've done.
Hey RIAA, if you see a nerd dressed in all black wearing a trenchcoat, ala "the Matrix", coming into your building...DUCK!
CNN: So, you can steal music with your tool, then?
Student: Well, sorta. You can find any kind of document on the network with it.
CNN: Like music.
Student: Music, along with any other type of file.
CNN: Illegal music.
Student: Well, I suppose.
CNN: So you're stealing music, then?
Student: No.
CNN: But you've created a tool for stealin music.
Student: I've created a tool that is a search engine, like AltaVista or Google.
CNN: There you have it, folks, one of the evil communists trying to get something for nothing.
All sweeping generalizations suck.
So what did the government... I mean the RIAA [claim you did]
Sounds like something a slashbot^H^H^H^dotter would say about them. I agree with the goatse man post a few comments up.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
"A few freshman machine came out of one their dorms, and they said, could you turn the volume down, we're trying to study for finals?"
Is this were bender went to college?
One thing is that the RIAA is cracking down on piracy, that is what it is -- but couldn't they at least find someone guilty?
ANCHOR: Hey, Jesse, why do you think the government came after you?
JESSE JORDAN, SETTLED LAWSUIT WITH RECORDING INDUSTRY: Well, actually it was the recording industry association.
Kind of hard to tell these days, isn't it?
Cheers,
-- RLJ
The government came after you...
Twice (although corrected the second time). Glad Jessie had the mind to correct the interviewer - it's not easy to think on national television - watching the news "professionals" should be evidence enough, think about when you're just a college student.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Does this kid have some burning desire to pay money to the RIAA till the end of time? He says first that he doesnt have the resources to defend a case, but then he follows it up by saying, yeah, I'm bringing the search engine back up.
Don't get me wrong, the RIAA is wrong, but why ask for a second ass-raping? You just know they'll come after him again. He settled once, odds are he'll settle again (or so I would guess).
Smooth move, RIAA; this really endears your customers to you.. Talk about cutting your own throat.
Trolling is a art,
The scariest and best part is when the INTERVIEWER actually confused the RIAA with the Government. That sure gives the RIAA some big clankin' balls.
Next... RIAA orders bombing of Canada, because its acutally legal to download music here!
Ratboy666.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
We have the power to crush and destroy those fuckers. If we **ALL SHARE OUR MUSIC**, we can bring those scumbags to their knees and have them reduced to utter helplessness. The true power lies in the hands of the People; if we act together, we can topple the fucking bastards that suck everything they can.
No wonder you posted this as anonymous. You're ignorant. If you followed this story the last 5 times it was posted on slashdot, you would have realized that these students only created search engines, nothing more. The people who are "depriving" millionaires of money are the people who willingly use search engines to steal things. If a whorehouse uses the phone book to advertise, is the phone book to blame when people visit the whorehouse? I don't think so. You also need to see through the RIAA propaganda. They say that music sales are down by some percent (I want to say 25% but the numbers aren't in front of me). The truth is, music releases are down more than that. They release less music, then blame computer users when sales go down. Anyway, you're ignorant of the laws and the actual technology used in this case. Also, your post makes no sense. No one is complaining about copyright infringement except the RIAA, even though they have stolen music.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
How does the RIAA decide which students to sue? I mean, do they do careful research on who's most likely to settle, rather than contest it, or counter-sue for harrassment? Of all the piracy that goes on college campuses, how do they pick which people?
Oh well. Pity that the record industry has had to resort to extorting $12,000 out of people who can't defend themselves who probably aren't doing anything illegal.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Its unbelievable that the RIAA would go to such lengths to make examples of these people. But what did they gain? The story mentions that the students settled but did not admit guilt. So the RIAA recoups "lost revenue" but did they really get what they wanted? An admission of guilt would have given the RIAA more ammunition for future witch-hunts. But on the other hand, now they know that they can coerce people out of ridiculous sums of money just by sharing MP3s. What will happen in the future?
While I realize that what these people did is illegal why doesn't the American government try and come up with a reasonable solution to this?
Any moment now I expect to hear a jarring noise and then Cardinal Ximinez, Cardinal Biggles, and Cardinal Fang bursting out saying "NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
The link said the transcript was "poorly spelled". I think the submitter has been reading too much /. lately. The spelling appeared fine to me. They even got "Grokster" right.
From article: A few freshman machine came out of one their dorms, and they said, could you turn the volume down, we're trying to study for finals?
Ah, the freshman machines... they were to beautiful then even with their freshman 15!
They sued an interview? Man, those RIAA lawyers are slick!
You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.
I say it's time the people put forth a bill for all elections state and national to require full disclosure of all contributions. The current system allows for too much sneaky back room deals. This way everyone can see exactly which politicians are being bought out by which companies. That's the only real way people can make well informed decisions. Not, vote for the person with the best ad campaigns on TV.
Is Blaine Hilton the latest
My family, friends, and I set up a network of FTP servers. Right now we have about 7 servers that I use regularly. A few are pop a couple indy and a few are rock. I can find anything I want within a couple of minutes. Anything I can't I ask the nodes and they will look in their network of FTP servers (friends of theirs that I don't know) usually this doesn't take long and the bandwidth is better than kazaa lite. I encourage each of you to teach friends and family how to set up FTP servers and sample your music that way. Remember to support your favorite artists and go to their concerts and buy their merch. They actually see the money from this.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
For the first time ever, I actually felt like protesting something. I showed up at around 1:40 (it should have started at 1:30) and there was absolutely no one there. Shame. Though it was probably because it was poorly advertised (a few posters and an email to a handful of people) and during finals week.
This seems right up their alley...this kid was running a general purpose search engine. It indexes everything it finds. It returns results. He made no money off of it. He was intimidated into settling, pure and simple.
Can I run a search engine now? Exactly HOW are google and alta vista immune from similar suits? Simple -- they can pay lawyers who could kick the crap out of the RIAA.
It's a travesty of justice. I wish one of the multi-letter organizations would help this guy.
Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.
-- The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli
I must be the only one who read that headline as The RIAA were suing the Interview with the student. Which of course, makes no sense. But this is the RIAA we're talking about, so I guess anything is possible...
Are you sure it's not monday?
He's totally creeping out the Great One, eh...
Yes, along with:
i c Lad
HanzoSan
sql*kitten
packeteer
56ker
Fantast
wowbagger
RPI's other search engine, run by a school-funded computer club, was taken by the school's request.
The whole thing doesn't sound right. He didn't fight because he has finals? Giving away $12,000 is worth having time to study for finals??
Sounds like an elaborate plot created by the RIAA. this is a hoax to scare people..."Oh I don't have time or money right now to go to court over something I'll win...here's $12k, I have to go study. Thank you"
Something is defiantly going on here...
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
I'm curious if this ruling affects the makers of handguns, cars, or just about anything else. Think about it. He developed a product for public use and it can be used illegally. Does this mean that the manufacture of his computer should also be sued by the RIAA because their product could be misused for sharing mp3s or writing code to steal mp3. What about the tape recorders that have been around for years. Or Cd Burners? Or even the radio? How come the RIAA isn't suing them.. What is next the RIAA suing to close down the internet entirely or any product that copies music. This is a monopoly trying to maintain it regime. Unite together against this dictator. United we stand. With free mp3 music for all. Also what about the so called legal peer to peer networks. How come they aren't being sued too. This is a case of the big RIAA fist smashing an independent company. Exactly what our government should protect against. Instead special interest groups and high priced lawyers are controlling the government through big industry.
Something poorly-spelled on Slashdot? I can't imagine.
Blog,Twitter
Ah I see, more basement dwellers that think karma is everything?
Will there ever be enough pressure from artists to tell the RIAA to go packing?
/. a few times... name escapes me) about what artists feel about this?
I know that quite a few famous stars have testified against the RIAA and the record labels because some artists feel that the industry has a chokehold on them. I'm wondering if and when they'll ever say "Enough is enough!" and strike out on their own?
Does anyone know of any recent links to stories (other than the one gal who's been linked to via
I have given up buying new CD's. I won't do it. I'll listen to the radio if I want to listen to music; but for the most part, if the radio is on, it's on talk radio.
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
I'd like to see the legal system set up so that neither party can spend more than the other, with some minimum allowance. For instance, if the RIAA wants to sue a student, and the student doesn't want to spend more than $100, the RIAA can't spend more than that, plus some basic allowance, say $1000. If the RIAA wants to spend more, they have to get the student's permission to loan him the money, and if they lose, they don't get the money back.
Apply it to governments too, so a state can't send in the well paid DA and his staff to prosecute some illiterate scum bag for a capital offense, while the public defender is only budgeted for one hour of time.
And yes, I do know about snowballs and hell.
Infuriate left and right
that's a mighty convienent mistake considering the media attention this has gotten.
I'd have to agree with the father, this was just a big PR trick for the RIAA and its a shame they aren't suing someone with the $$$$ to fight back.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Now when I tell people I went to RPI they'll know what the fuck I'm talking about.
Rensewhatsitpolytechniwho??? Only my east coast friends know what about RPI. Half my friends think I went to MIT.
GO ZOO!!! Sage girls! and Troylets!
(posted anonymously so that my past and future political comments won't be associated with RPI by people with censorship agendas)
Consider spending months and months, and 100s of thousands of dollars to defend yourself.
Yes you could countersue, and you might get your court costs covered. But where do you get the money you need to fight with (not even considering you might never get it back, even if you win)?
The US justice system is a tool for people/companies with money. If you can't afford to fight a suit brought against you, then you have to settle (which despite not admitting wrongdoing, always makes you look guilty.)
.sigs are for post^Hers.
And now they wonder why their alumni won't give them a damn dime.
ping -f www.riaa.org
There once was a man from RPI,
who the RIAA decided to try,
he was forced to settle,
but we'll continue to mettle,
and share musical art till we die.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
I believe Jesse Jordan's point to be the same as mine and many others hosting p2p-type networks, searches, etc. MP3 trading has not hurt sales of anything but music singles - do that math (since the RIAA obviously cant) and you'll see they only handle 4 billion a year in total cash flow, so unless they intend to show entirely different numbers reflecting a 100% loss in revenue I suggest they get a new story. Jesse Jordan is awfully brave though to admit he intends to bring his search back up in the next couple days. Not the smartest thing to say but at least he was honest about it. People have forgotten what 'fair use' means and the BONO term of copyright length is insane - the 14-year with one max 14-year extension for ALL works makes sense and is what our founders wanted. As for fair use, as long as we are not making a profit I don't see the problem, heck - music sales are holding strong when most other business markets are struggling so give me a break. This is the old VHS fight all over but this time we don't have big business on our side. They are more than willing to make mp3 players for us to use but if we go to jail or have to fight for our right to use them, too bad. So, I say to you RIAA/MPAA - Are you afraid to attack the big boys again for fear they will shut you down again? Come on, lets have you attack Sony or RCA or any mp3 player mfr and see how long it takes you to get smacked down. I'll just keep hosting my p2p hub thanks.
Boy, my dad would have kicked my ass if I pulled a stunt in college that cost him $12k...I was lucky to get $10/week for extra beer money.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
Go away Blaine, we don't love you anymore.
Yes, this is a http://rd.yahoo.com/M=219286.219286.1832845.336901 3.1356153.1832845/D=mail/P=m2g164i0112q00/S=150500 14:LREC/A=956988/N=P=m2g164i0112q00/R=o/*http://go atse.cx
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Send your cash to Toostupidtoread@cnn.com
Maybe that AC was the RIAA.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
J. JORDAN: Yes, basically. I don't think it's going to work either. People are still sharing the same amount of files. There's still actually a search engine available right now at RPI.
;-)
We'll see Jesse, we'll see
Really, a more applicable analogy would be "if people use Google to find child porn, is it Google's fault?"
In 2000, the RIAA claimed that sales dropped 4.1%. Meanwhile, they cut their album inventory by about 25%. They are making more money per release in the past three years than in the history of CDs.
How, exactly, have the RIAA stolen music? If they have, then that's quite interesting, but if you're just talking about paying the artists next-to-nothing, then that's not stealing. The artists signed the contracts. If they didn't hire all sorts of lawyers to go over them and make sure that there weren't loopholes, then that's their problem.
I actually met a contract lawyer once. He said that out of all of the recording industry contracts that he had reviewed, not one had been payed correctly. The artists were almost always owed significantly more than they had been payed.
"if they could lose that much"
Help Jesse pay the $12,000. Go to Chewplastic.com and click the "contribute via paypal" link that's at the top of the page right now. Fuck the RIAA.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
There's really nothing in this interview that implies that the reason the RIAA went after him was because of the search engine and not some other reason-- such as him possibly having some bootleg mp3's on his computer. It seems likely to me that the reason he settled was because he in fact was doing or aiding some infringing in some more direct way and at this point he'd prefer everyone think that the RIAA went after him for some more arbitrary reason (as it makes him seem less guilty). Not that I agree with the RIAA's tactics at all, but if all this kid did was to put up a google-like search engine I think he'd probably have the ACLU or the EFF or several other organizations ready to pro-bono defend such a landmark case. It seems to me there's something being swept under the rug here...
I see them more as fucking annoying uber-133t, smartass know-it-alls. However, your basement theory is probably spot on too. Especially HanzoSan and 56ker.
Interview with Student Sued by RIAA.
Explain... are they suing the student, or are they suing the interview? This reminds me of the old "table for sale by lady with Heppelwhite legs" joke I heard in English class.
Okay, Okay I get the hint! I usually write pretty decent replies so what's the deal if I have a link to a site in my sig? I admit I may have been pushing it in some posts where I added more links, but they were all relevant too. Another albeit more interesting concept is that none of the posters commenting about me will post under their own name. I have never once posted anonymously, and I'm proud of that (although I probably won't if big brother ever comes after me)
This is just some sad shit. I'm MILDLY hesitant to jump into this kid's corner because it really is all too possible he made this tool for the explicit task of searching for mp3's. If so, right or wrong, the RIAA did an effective job of cutting a little of chunk of the worldly piracy off at a source. If he made it just as a search engine, then yes, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Just show up and turn on the computer and type in www.google.com and point out to the jury that if they've ever used this search engine, they're going to get sued as well. Then walk out and the case would be thrown out. How easy is that?
IS OKAY! WE FORGIVE U!
Sorry Blaine Hilton, you're an asshat and must be eliminated.
You don't write decent replies, you're a clueless moron that spouts off half-cocked. Much like butting into a conversation, you run to slashdot waving your PeePee in the air screaming "Look at me! I'm Blaine Hilton! I have a PeePee!"
No one cares, please leave now.
Yours truly,
Charles M. Buttfuque
President, The (TBA) Blaine Hilton Memorial Society
the guys are as much guilty as the guy who laid pipe connecting dorms to the campus computers. the search engine is a generic process. google, yahoo etc have vested interest and sooner or later, they too would have joined the fight in their favor. by settling the case, they have given wrong signal to the world. if a case like this goes to jury, i doudt, any jury would consider them guilty. it would be hard to find a juror in US who hasn't recorded a song from somewhere (either friend's borrowed media, or doenloaded or from public library etc). the most euphemistic term that I can use for these guys is "practical coward".
REPORTER: Hey, Jesse, why do you think the government came after you?
JESSE: Well, actually it was the recording industry association.
REPORTER: Yeah, that's what I said. The government.
"All it takes to fly is to hurl yourself at the ground... and miss." - Douglas Adams
Who did the transcript on that thing? One of Superman's foes from the Bizarro planet?
Un-news
> Hey, Jesse, why do you think the government came
> after you?
Jackass.
For what it's worth, I lived down the street from RPI for two years, and it is a "hotbed for piracy," however the kid's father may protest.
What you have, basically, is a campus full of geeks and alpha geeks, and the half-secretive tradition of cracking that goes with it. Years ago it was phreaking the telephones for long-distance calls (I got this straight from an alumnus), and people I know who still go there have told me that tons of students ("everyone" is the phrase he used) have hard drives full of MP3's.
However one feels about so-called "sharing," it's only honest to admit that plenty of it goes on at RPI.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
If you were the RIAA, paid to protect the copyright system, what would you be doing? I would probably be doing exactly what they are...a mix of scare tactics and legitimate legal recourse. Unfortunately for music fans, the law is on the RIAA's side. Personally, the tactics have worked on me. I make enough so that buying CDs isn't that big an expense and the potential for them to send me a letter and collect $12k doesn't seem worth it.
laugh hard, it's a long way to the bank
Headline: Interview with Student Sued by RIAA
:(
ARGHHHHH! What is this world coming to? It's bad enough that they sue students, but now they're suing interviews with students ?
Also, I thought you couldn't sue an interview, since it's just an idea (not a person). Besides, who will pay if they win? It's not like an interview has a job.
*sigh* What's next? I hope they don't sue electrons.
Is there anywhere to donate to help pay for the penalty these kids paid? I'd be happy to throw in a few bucks.
What happens to the $12,000? Do they divide it up between every recording artist? What would that be a couple of pennies, if that? I'm pretty sure that won't happen. I'd say there is a bigger chance of someone getting a bonus or a trip to Hawaii from the $$$. RIAA's theory of music sells down because of file swapping is about as screwed up as a soup sandwich and a football bat....
Right off hand, I know Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters said, "What? do they want me to start putting a quarter in my car radio?" and Fred Durst has said, "Yeah, we [Limp Bizkit] make too much money anyway". Granted, Fred Durst isn't as cool as Dave Grohl...it's still something to think about. ~Scuba Steve
but technically, was not the data passing through HIS machine? He was not merely indexing and pointing users to the files, he was actually the download point (how else would outside users access smb shares in their web browsers?)--acting as an HTTP proxy to fetch SMB data. I fail to see how he could NOT have performed the basic level of checking for content (e.g., "grep -v N.Sync") given this fact if he really wanted to. It would be very interesting to see his logs--presuming he kept them. I'd bet dollars to donuts that 99% of those downloads were of mp3s and other pirated material. TO make a long story short, he's not like Google or altavista. Google has never been the gate keeper to the data itself nor can anyone seriously attempt to argue that most of the results that they serve up are for pirated material.
No, Child porn and mp3s have no relationship at all.
Your analogy would work better if you said "if people use Google to find irc networks that share mp3s, is it Google's fault."
Since I haven't been following this story, I'll take your word for it that the settlement had to do with the MP3s collection.
... over accusations of music downloading". So that would point to the stash of MP3s. But when Hemmer later asks Jesse what the RIAA came after him for, Jesse replies "They said I'm guilty of contributory copyright infringement, which would mean that I assist people in downloading copyrighted material and direct infringement". Which points to his search engine.
But the transcript's contents (which I read a couple of times) do leave it unclear what he was charged with. Bill Hemmer's lead says that "... individuals are paying damages
I think you meant 'meddle' and not 'mettle'
but nice limerick all the same...
Another albeit more interesting concept is that none of the posters commenting about me will post under their own name.
I did a few times. You learned (ad > sig), I won't in the future.
This disclaimer found on the Altavista MP3 Search page:
Disclaimer
Please be aware that the multimedia files referenced, made accessible or made available to you on these pages or by means of the AltaVista multimedia search engine are protected by the copyright and trademark laws of the United States and other countries. Therefore, you may need to obtain authorization of the owner of such materials before using them. Some of the multimedia content accessible through our search engine may be offensive to you. AltaVista accepts no responsibility or liability for such content, or your use of such content.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
Well, you can sue corporations (so far), and they're just ideas . . .
did this guy talk to CNN? CNN is owned by AOL/TW and they are a major part of RIAA. I'd go so far as to say that they ARE RIAA.
And where is CNN's disclaimer about THAT?!?!
Again, why would you agree to an interview with someone who just shook you down?
Hold on, my jaw's on the floor...
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
the band members signed a contract that doesn't give them money for it, I don't feel terribly sorry for them.
I signed a pretty nasty contract when I started working in software engineering -- basically, they own my ideas, my hobbies, my privacy, etc. Them's the ropes. It's still legal to give up certain things to find work. You can't actually prostitute yourself (literally) in most states. The musician or band signing with a major label knows exactly what's going on by now -- the label gets the money, honey. It's standard. Don't like it?
Don't sign the contract.
MORTAR COMBAT!
It's cool that you can order a video of the transcript from CNN, but I'm holding out for the exclusive video of the transcriber's lunch bag.
--- What?
The kid set up a paypal link on his site (chewplastic.com) so help him pay the rediculous extortion by the RIAA. I threw the kid $20 to help.
These people look deep into my soul and assign me a number based on the order I joined.
Well, child porn and copies of MP3s are both illegal under federal law. IRC servers are not. Therefore, they are related in that sense.
IRC requires you to actively send the files, whereas this search engine is just that. A search engine that finds files on people's open shares. Meanwhile, Google finds information on people's public websites.
Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.
-- The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli
the students weren't just charged with writing search engines, they were charged with actually having infringed copyrights by having downloaded some of those files to their own computers. Those charges were very likely true, and carry a very hefty penalty in and of themselves.
MORTAR COMBAT!
I have files that I have ripped from CDs on my hard drive. I also use the file sharing mechanism in Windows to share the contents of my hard drive over a network. Now this search engine comes along and indexes all the files on my PC, including my legitimate MP3s. Am I liable? If so, I'm going to sue Microsoft for making a system that doesn't know how to filter out MP3s.
...the grandparent poster used the word gal, not girl.
Gal simply means female, but connotes maturity (to me at least).
Also, is Ani DiFranco the gal in question?
Sorry, that was a bit of insider information. The RIAA used bots to crawl the Phynd service (which will soon be up at phynd.chewplastic.com) and they download a shitload of files, some of which were by artists that aren't a part of the RIAA. Shhh...don't tell anyone.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Where was the EFF? I would have thought that they would have jumped all over this. After all, the defendants search engine had a number of legitimate uses.
-Dave
Don't forget Funksaw! oh... wait.
Found this on yahoo...
= 67 9&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20030506/cm_usatoday/51 31419
"The industry is developing computer viruses that would attack the computers of people offering pirated music. On the legislative front, it is pushing for a national law that would make such hacking by copyright holders legal"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid
Music industry's aggressive tactics tune out fans on Net
Tue May 6, 7:24 AM ET Add Op/Ed - USA TODAY to My Yahoo!
Users of popular Internet systems for music copying are getting a new and unwelcome surprise: ominous instant messages from the recording industry warning that ''distributing or downloading copyrighted music on the Internet without permission from the copyright owner is ILLEGAL.''
Order beautiful photos by USA TODAY photographers
Travel Tools: Check fares, book a ticket, and more!
Today in the Sky: Real-time airport weather, delays, and travel news
Travel deals, news, and features straight to your inbox. Click here to sign up!
The messages are the latest tactic in record companies' reinvigorated war against Internet music copying. Always quick to verbally attack those who use file-sharing systems, the industry now is adopting more tangible tactics. Call it virtual warfare.
Except the industry's messages contain a real threat of legal action. They also warn those tempted to share Internet music that doing so opens their computers' hard drives to unsavory characters who may be looking for more than free music.
This is classic recording-industry recalcitrance: heavy on threats against breaking the law, light on incentives to obey it. And it's only the first volley. The industry is developing computer viruses that would attack the computers of people offering pirated music. On the legislative front, it is pushing for a national law that would make such hacking by copyright holders legal.
Talk about adopting enemy tactics. By proceeding with its plans, the recording industry would join the ranks of Internet spammers and hackers. It also would waste creative efforts alienating the very people it needs to lure back to legitimate music sites.
The strategy raises questions about the business rational behind destroying an audience to save it -- especially an audience that has proved itself hungry for a reliable, convenient way to record music online.
The growth of Internet-file swapping has exploded in the past two years. Ratings services estimate that users of Kazaa, one of the services targeted in the recording industry's campaign, number almost a quarter billion worldwide. That's triple the number of people who used Napster (news - web sites) before an industry lawsuit shut down the file-swapping service in 2001.
The industry says it needs to step up its efforts because piracy has become readily accepted. But its aggressive stance isn't working. Napster, the once-dominant fileswapping service, no longer exists. Verizon Communications lost a pivotal legal case and now must provide the names of suspected music pirates who use its Internet service. Colleges, fearing litigation, have stepped up efforts to police music theft on campuses.
Yet the efforts have failed to get people to pay for music recorded off the Internet. One reason is that legitimate music sites remain unappealing. Most are cumbersome and offer fewer services to paying customers than illegal sites provide for free.
That could be changing. After months of courting by Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs (news - web sites), five major recording labels agreed to a less-restrictive approach to selling online music. Unveiled last week, Apple's iTunes Music Store allows customers to buy music a la carte rather than pay monthly subscription fees. It also lets them copy music on up to three computers and burn up to 10 CDs.
At 99 cents per song, the service still faces a major marketing challenge in luring people away from illegal sites. But it is a tentative move in the right direction. Now, if record companies could be more aggressive in pricing and less so in threatening customers, they might make real progress
If you had RTFS then you would have noted that this guy merely put up a search engine to find ANY kind of file.
Read the article before posting your judgement.
...is the title of a book of these. I think it may have been compiled from the bits Jay Leno did on the Tonight Show.
Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
Who's this Hemmer clown? Either he's really high or he doesn't give two cents about this interview.
Keeps referring to RIAA as government and puts words in people's mouths (like with "intimidation", a word Hemmer brought up, not the Jordans.)
If he were senile maybe I'd understand. Is he an ancient geezer about to croak?
The courts just ruled in favor of Morpheus and Grokster, which are basically just search engines of another kind (compared to, say, Google).
... violating Microsoft's copyright and IP rights? AOL Instant Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger both allow users to share files (even entire directories). How is this different?
Now, if it's true that all these guys did was provide a search facility, why doesn't that ruling apply?
If all they did was provide a means to search for information they do not control or distribute themselves doesn't that mean ALL search engines could be sued? I mean, dang, I can go to MSN right now and find any number of sites willing to give me cracks and CD keys for Microsoft products (among many, many others). Does this mean the BSA should go after the Microsoft Network for
I really don't get it. If it's as simple as that, why didn't any number of search providers and special interest groups (Google, MSN, Lycos, AOL, Yahoo!, EFF) step forward and say, "You know what, we don't think so. You will back off. You will do it now."
What am I missing? They had to do something other than just provide a neutral search facility, right?
Under the Morpheus/Grokster ruling they could claim they designed the engine just for legit uses (or just because they felt like doing it as an intellectual exercise) and cannot be responsible if individuals not under the creators' direct control use the tool for uses other than those for which it was intended.
This goes back to the hammer analogy, I suppose: If I go to ACE and buy a hammer to bludgeon someone to death with, can the victim's family sue ACE and/or the manufacturer? That would be insane since the primary use of a hammer is not the braining of people who piss me off. Justification could be made for anything from automobiles to peanuts (ie, secretly feeding them to someone who is deathly allergic to them).
If all they truly did was create a search engine, it seems to me the RIAA simply used its gigantic financial power (in the form of threats of endless, costly litigation) to extort money from a tiny foe because going after a much larger, more dangerous but identical (in principle) foe (such as Google, MSN or Lycos) wouldn't be so easy, and because certain foes (Morhpeus, Grokster) had already been declared off-limits.
That is, I believe, the very defintion of "bully."
While I realize that what these people did is illegal why doesn't the American government try and come up with a reasonable solution to this?
SSSSssssshh!
Don't even THINK about that! In the current political climate, the US government's "solution" would probably be to deport the students to Guantanamo for torture and eventual execution (remember: hacking and music piracy are "terrorism" now!), and subsidize the RIAA by a few hundred billion $ per year.
...I'm glad it got rectified eventually.
Sadly, that means squat in the public mind.
If anything of this will stick it is the big sexy "fact" that "the gubmint is gonna bust you for trading files".
I mean, look at this example:
A lot of people think they have found lots and lots of chemical weapons stached away in Iraq.
This is (at least this far) simply not the case, but the media has loadly claimed these findings, and then retracted them in fine print so many times that it has become the truth in a lot of peoples minds.
The big sexy news item, repeated again and again sticks, regardles of if it is true or not.
Exactly the RIAA's purpose with these lawsuits, I presume...
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Right before the site got /.'d he added a paypal donation thing to the top. For anyone that can't see the page anymore, the paypal address is jordaj@rpi.edu. The last time I saw the page there were 1200+ users online. If we all donate $10 that covers what he owes and he can use anything leftover to fight back against the RIAA. We all need to take some action against the RIAA before this gets even worse. Where this guy has already been in court with the RIAA and his lawyers are familiar with them, we could get him to take some kind of action against them with all of us supporting. I dunno, I'm not familiar with the legal process or how our laws work, but I know taking $12,000 from a poor college student for downloading a few mp3s is not justified.
DirecTV is SUEING people for mere possession of smartcard technology equipment. And how do they prove you possessed it? They use the records seized from smartcard technology websites and state that proves possession and usage.
What they do is they are forcing innocent people to settle ($3500) because the cost of litigating to prove innocence costs a lot more money ($5000-10,000+).
DirecTV claims if you call them and deny using the equipment for signal piracy, they will dismiss the suit, but that is pure crap.
Lots more info here.
It is my understanding from the "last 5 times" this story was posted" that these students did not just create search engines; they were in possession of pirated MP3 files.
Everyone yelling about how much more money the RIAA has for legal fees is ignoring the fact that possession of music which is not "licensed" to you is against the law.
Unless you want to argue that someone with a sufficient legal budget could take this case as far as possible until they are either denied further appeals or the laws are declared unconstitutional, then these complaints of insufficient legal fees do not make sense.
This is not a case of "RIAA sues Google for providing search services", a case of "RIAA sues Google employee for having illegal music on company-owned equipment.
What people don't want to address here is that legally, the RIAA seems to be correct.
Don't blame the RIAA for reduced diversity -- blame the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which destroys earlier limitations on the ownership of radio stations. Stations were limited to owning only low number of stations (I forget specifics, but it was somewhere between 8 and 40).
Has anyone noticed that suddenly Clear Channel owns damned near everything? I'll bet that with over 1200 stations, Clear Channel now owns at least 3 FM stations in most major U.S. cities. Clear Channel probably doesn't make up a specific playlist for each radio station, which means that most R&B stations, for instance, play a bunch of homogenized crap. A lot of said crap can be played by stations which are supposed to differ in format -- how many stations (Light Rock, Rock, Top 40, etc.) play the band Creed?
All of this leads to reduced diversity in radio -- many stations in Pittsburgh are basically a carbon copy of what you might hear in, say, Phoenix.
Less diverse radio leads to less diverse demand (as seen by the RIAA). Less diverse demand leads to less diverse titles. Less diverse titles lead to disappointed customers. Disappointed customers, of course, lead to reduced sales.
If the RIAA really wanted to increase profits, they'd fight monopolistic media.
Shya, and pigs might fly out of my butt.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
ah... the memories of college days gone by...
"can you spell Rensselaer?"
GO ENGINEERS!
His application was a search engine? This does not say much for the competence of the RIAA technical people. His example is bad for several reasons
1) He represents an insignificant amount of users (those that used his search engine) so this case would not be "putting a head on a pike as an example"
2) He was not infringing any more than Google.
The law should read that, if the plaintiff loses, he must pay the defendant the amount he was asking for in damages. Then, anyone could afford a lawyer on a contingency basis.
Name a popular RIAA member artist that condones their music being ripped off their CD and freely traded on P2P networks. I'm not talking about concert bootlegs or limited samples, I'm talking about direct CD rips.
The Offspring were vocal Napster proponents. And before you say they're not popular, go look up their sales. Further, you then argue that
The ONLY artists that don't mind - or even LIKE - their music being freely traded are indies.
Which is also clearly not true, as they're a big-label band.
That's one off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.
Furthermore, unlike your analogy of the gun manufacturer, I am quite certain that if you were to analyze the usage of these search TOOLS (not to mention the websites run by the same students) that you would discover that the overwhelming majority was used for piracy and not legitimate use. Certainly you won't deny that there are millions of hunters in this country (not to mention people that use them for target practice, collection, and self-defense). Although I am for an outright ban or much stricter controls on guns in the US, even I will make this distinction clear.
Although my allegations may not be proof--the only way to settle them is by going to COURT--you cannot reasonably declare them to be unreasonable assertions before hearing the case and seeing RIAA's evidence.
Kinkos and others have been sued successfully for copyright infringement.
No, but many people would hold liable the owner of the car if they left their shiny new red Ford Mustang with keys in the ignition and a big sign saying "take me for a spin" in front of some middle school (or especially if they lent their keys to their friend's drunk son).
Just to add that little extra insult to injury, it's nice to see the RIAA bullying a college kid during finals week. I have friends who are still in school (including one at RPI) and I can't get them to answer their phones during finals week, let alone defend against an attack from the pack of lawyers dispatched by the RIAA.
Sadly, I bet they deliberately chose this time of year to do this.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
I propose that the next time you want to listen to an RIAA album that you download a pirate copy of it and then send the $18 to Jesse to help pay his settlement.
Wouldn't that make them pimps?
(In Ralph's voice): "Slshdot fael speling? Buth dats un-posible!"
Funny how the reporter kept saying "the government" instead of "the RIAA". But hey, the two are practically interchangable.
where the comment ends and sig begins
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
First: You need to read a book called "All You Need to Know About the Music Buisness" by Donald Passman. This book is a great read for exactly how record company math REALLY goes. You also find out that basically the entire goal of the recording industry is to screw the artists and keep as much for themselves. (I mean really I can have 1000 CDs pressed for right around $1000 WITH the the cool cover art and everything, so where is all that money really going?) Second: Most record companies (the big 5 anyway) are stationed out of either LA or New York, and California placed a law into effect that basically makes bands that sign to recording contracts nothing more then "works for hire". In other words the artists don't even OWN their music anymore. This law is being relooked at and hopefully changed. So just because it's not TECHNICALLY stealing, it's not exactly what one would call moral either... Three: The fact that YOU quote a contract lawyer saying "most always owed significantly more the they have been paid" TOTALLY makes your whole argument right above that COMPLETELY null and void ...
Since when are copies of mp3s illegal? They aren't.
I agree with the other response. You people come in and just post whatever you decide to post without even reading the damn articles. Shut up unless you have something educated to say. "Nike Sued Because Woman Tripped and Fell While Wearing Nike Shoes" Slashdot Anonymous Coward: NIKE SHOULD BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE THEIR CEO TRIPPED THAT LADIE LOLKTHX!!! Read, think, post.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
He currently has a link on his website on which people can click to donate money via Paypal.*
I know that some Slashdot readers really can't afford to donate, but many can. With Slashdot claiming over 200,000 unique visitors per day, it would only take a small percentage of people to completely defray the costs of his settlement.
If the RIAA sues a college student and drains his college savings, then they have won. If the Internet community chips in to cover the costs of the settlement, the RIAA has lost. The RIAA probably spent far more than $12,000 bringing the suit, incurred negative publicity, and will not have substantially harmed the victim of their lawsuit if Internet users pay the settlement. Not only that, the RIAA will see that there is a community poised to support its members and next time, maybe the funds will pay for legal defense rather than a settlement.
* Please, no replies with your thoughts on PayPal, donation accounting, etc. This is someone who has been screwed by the RIAA and the legal system and if you don't want to donate, then don't. But please do not try to discourage others from donating.
Tip off the RIAA to some students at a LAW SCHOOL! In the words of Sark: "Wait! Let him fight one of his own kind."
The ONLY reason [peer-to-peer file transfer] networks exist is to trade free stuff that is supposed to cost money.
Then why did Red Hat decide to release the latest version of its GNU/Linux distribution on a P2P system called BitTorrent?
Madonna sounded pretty pleased that I'd downloaded that song.
She sounded pleased because I paid Warner Bros. Records for the MP3. Want to see my receipt?
Name a popular RIAA member artist that condones their music being ripped off their CD and freely traded on P2P networks.
What about the Offspring, as quistas mentioned? What about System of a Down, who even called an album "Steal This Album!"? What about Smashing Pumpkins, who released the band's Machina II album on vinyl and suggested that it be ripped and distributed online? What about Eminem, who contradicts himself by speaking out publicly against piracy yet suggesting that listeners "download the audio on MP3 and show the whole world" in the lyrics to "The Real Slim Shady"?
I see [the "preview"] argument occassionally
I have a rule: once I have pirated 3 songs from an album, I make a point to pick up an authorized copy of the CD next time I'm out.
Will I retire or break 10K?
To the mods: I have Karma to throw away, so that's what I'm doing. This is a totally worthless rant and only marginally connected to the topic of this story.
... that really was just luck.
That said, I am so sick of hearing about litigation. It seems the Great American Dream is no longer to succeed in life through hard work, innovation and entrepreneurial prowess but to be on the constant lookout for someone to sue for wholly unrealistic sums.
A few years ago I was at work and suddenly found myself in so much pain I actually went to my knees. It was as if someone was exploring my guts with a red-hot fist and anything but a gentle touch. That lasted a few minutes during which I was fairly certain I was going to die and pretty certain it would have to be an improvement.
I was a healthy guy in my early 20s and had had no previous symptoms. The doctor at my HMO didn't see me straight away. I was seen by a nurse practitioner. She did a lot of tests, all of which came back negative right away or would take a day or more to show results. The abdominal X-Ray was mostly inconclusive, but I didn't appear to be bleeding internally. The nurse mentioned an MRI in passing and I immediately had the urge to bolt from the office -- I'm somewhat claustrophobic and pretty sure I'd go batty in that little tube. She smiled, said that was a common reaction and she didn't think it would be immediately necessary. She called in a nurse, they chatted; a bit later the nurse came back and said the only OpenMRI lab in town was booked solid for days.
More tests. She went over my symptoms with me again, poked around on my stomach until I wanted to hurt her in various creative ways but in reality just laid there and tried not to cry while offering one emphatic "YES!" after another to, "Does this hurt?"
She decided after that that I had pancreatitis, which is excruciatingly painful but never lasts more than 48 hours or so. She gave me a prescription for antibiotics and pain meds and I called my mom to come get me. The next day was hell. 48 hours! I figured I'd make it, if only just. But then 48 hours passed. And I went back. More tests, more head-scratching. I learned nothing new and was sent home. 72 hours. I felt a bit better, I supposed, or maybe I was just getting used to it. By the fourth day I was fine. It was later in the week that I found out what I'd really had: a small perforation in my stomach. I could have died at any point along the way. Surgery is usually indicated and the condition is considered immediately life-threatening. I was one of the rare few who have the things heal up on their own.
Everyone said I should sue. Everyone said I should be seriously, litigiously pissed. Especially since the actual doctor didn't see me until AFTER the whole thing was basically over (on the third day, when I was showing improvement, at which she adopted a "Wait and see, but don't hesitate to get to the ER if it gets worse" attitude.).
Except that I did a little research and I had perfectly described the symptoms of pancreatitis, apparently for good reason. It seems that acid from my stomach was leaking onto my pancreas (which is why it hurt a LOT more to lay down than to stand or sit, I guess). It was a perfect mimic. I was even sore in all the right places. A friend of mine has an uncle who is a trial lawyer and he was ready to jump all over it. "But I begged off the MRI," I told him. "But she didn't stress it hard enough," he replied. "The burden was hers, you have no medical training, you only knew you didn't want to get shoved in a dark hole. She was more than willing to comply because MRI's aren't cheap." To this day I don't actually know if an MRI would have helped. I suppose it would have shown the perforation the X-Ray missed. I suppose, in the end, it would have also caused me to undergo a surgery that, luckily, in the end I didn't need anyway. But
It went back and forth. In the end, I didn't sue. I might even h
I said that the RIAA member companies were stealing their money, not their music. Per the contract, the company is owed music. Once the artists give it to the company, they get paid. It's not like the company is taking it. You can't force someone to sing or play in a band. However, you can shortchange them, which is stealing money.
Really, there is mostly semantic difference between the two, but according to the law, it's the money that it being stolen.
As for the contracts not being paid properly, again, that's the artist's problem.
Well, it turns out that TinoMNYY24 (the original poster for this sub-thread) was talking about them stealing music from other artists. That is how I interpreted it.
Lastly, please use either Plain Old Text mode or br tags in the future. Your post is a bit hard to read.
Technicaly, you are right. Copies of MP3s are not illegal. Making copies of them for anything other than personal use is illegal. However, I think that you know what I meant.
Sounds like a job for My Cousin Vinny.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
If I run out and shoot someone dead, I can only be prosecuted for that crime once (barring appeals). If I run out and shoot someone else, I can be tried for that crime.
Similarily, if it was a criminal trial, he could only be tried once, unless he infringes again, in which case that instance of infringement could be tried, as it would be a seperate and distinct crime.
In case you don't feel like fishing, here are some of the bigger names you'd be up against:
Warner Music Group
Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
The Atlantic Group
Univision Music Group
Buena Vista Music Group
Maverick Recording Company
RCA Music Group
Epic Records Group
Solar Records/J.Hines Co.
Universal Music Group
Columbia Records Group
EMI, Recorded Music N.A.
Arista Records Inc.
Elektra Entertainment Group
BMG Entertainment
Tommy Boy Music
Capitol Records
I'm sure they'll see they can't win, and back down :)
.sigs are for post^Hers.
A quote from the interview: "JORDAN: They said I'm guilty of contributory copyright infringement, which would mean that I assist people in downloading copyrighted material and direct infringement."
What about Google, Yahoo, Lycos, and the rest of the search engines? Those do the same damn thing but on an even greater scale!
So now I hear (on ZDnet/Reuters) that the RIAA may be planning to distribute fake song files on P2P services... they would do anything from redirecting the user to a music website to locking up the user's computer for a period of time. Man, nothing would give me more pleasure than to see the RIAA prosecuted under federal law for something like this. DOJ, are you listening? Say, that might highlight the difference between the RIAA and "the government".
It was annoying that he kept saying the 'Government' was coming after the kid. He got corrected, but it's scary because...it takes the burden of 'hey we're assholes' from the RIAA. People need to be aware of the RIAA, and what they are doing. NO I know outside of tech. areas has ever heard of the RIAA unless I've said something to them.
.. other contrast of the RIAA & MPAA.
Interesting contrast with the
I don't think the general public knows about stuff like this. If anything they have heard of Napster and are on the RIAA's side about it. So..
Someone had an idea that the two parties couldn't spend more than the others. Kind of an interesting idea. I'm sure there's a case where it would not work out nicely.
It's to bad these guys really -had- to settle. It makes me think about what I would do in the situation, and I'm not really sure. I believe I would have tried to get the court to delay proceedings until the end of the term, and then fought it. In this case, because of the morpheus/grokster settlements, I think they would have won. Especially with the examples of Google/Altavista. It's just an index of information/tool. Anyway.
I sent a letter to the RIAA detailing the things I was interested in buying off the Apple Music Store, but wouldn't because of their actions against these three students. I believe it(Apple Music Store) or something like it is really going to be the 'solution' to all this mess, but I can't justify funding the RIAA w/ CD's or AAC downloads. The day the RIAA stops hiring lawyers to find solutions and hires some engineers will be the day we see this all come to the end.. or a new silly DRM scheme. sigh.
Live concerts all summer!
> Well, child porn and copies of MP3s are both illegal under federal law.
While the first is true, the second is not.
MP3s are not illegal anywhere.
If they were, that would automatically make ALL SOUND STORING FORMATS illegal.
All of your tapes and CDs and old 8 tracks would be just as illegal.
Same as records or all computers with a sound card or your answering machine and voicemail box.
Concidering the RIAA is still in business, clearly distributing music is not a federal crime.
That would work soooo well.
Let's see, I want to sue Firestone because they knowingly sold me faulty tires that caused my accident. They only want to spend $100 for their legal defense so I have to loan them the money so I can sue them?
Let's keep it in your context, and assuming the RIAA was in the right here. The RIAA would have to loan me $100,000 so they can rightfully sue me for $20,000? Brilliant!
As far as the government aspect... Yeah, I want limit the DA's ability to prosecute the a-hole who raped and murdered my daughter because he's a homeless crack head.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
I don't think Slashdotters should keep comparing everything to child porn. This makes us all seem as though we're interested in it.
I do understand that it represents something that most of us find abbhorant (sp?), but yet can be used as an example that free speech should be upheld.
Baring the fact that he is already going to a expensive school, and decided money was more important then any principles he believed he had.
I wonder if he even contacted the EFF about this, or just folded.
Give the money to the EFF.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm pretty sure he was referring to Janis Ian.
so the next person doesn't die, thats why.
The hospital will only change procedures if they get sued. She should have said "there could be a problem that mimics pancreatitis, so I strongly suggest you take an MRI" then scheduled for an emergency MRI.
If at that point you failed to show up, or refused, THEN it is on you, but until she insisted she had not done due diligence.
I am not a big SUE for anything type of person, but it does have other effect.
Plus, you didn;t have to sue for millions, you could of sued for 100,000 plus law fees and a change in policy. It owuld have been enough to get there attention, not so much that you are raping the system.
Also, most multi-million dollar lawsuits end up appeal until there a reasonable amount.
of course the media doesn't report "that person we told you got 100 bazillion dollars only got 100K after the apeals."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Perhaps they were. However, it is my understanding that they got sued for the contents of the whole network. RIAA queried the search engine, counted the mp3-s and sued students for damages. Mind you, a percentage of these were from student's computers, but they were sued for EVERYTHING.
You are wrong; you cannot always trust the media or the alleged criminal. Please read the complaint yourself. He was sued for RUNNING it, not for creating the code. Perhaps his coding played a role in RIAA's motive for filing, but that was not part of the complaint and it does not lessen his responsibility over his own server. What's more, if you read the complaint, you will see that he kept statistics on the kind of content available on his share so he was explicitly aware of what was going on. He choose to settle and inflict punishment on himself because he was afraid of what might happen if he did not; he was not summarily punished. This is how our legal system works. Deal with it.
d an 40303cmp.pdf
You can read the complaint here:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/riaa/arcojor
You're right, he was infringing on copyrights. However, the original lawsuit was worded in such a way that they were suing him for putting up a search engine and "oh, by the way, he may or may not be sharing files." The RIAA has no proof that he was sharing files, they need to download a copy of an infringed work from someone and prove that the computer in question is owned and operated by that person before they can win a lawsuit. The RIAA didn't do this, they simply sued for the "facilitation of copyright infringement" and then when Jesse and the others fought back, they dropped that case all together and forced a settlement so that there was not another suit brought against them for sharing these files. This is a case of "The RIAA sues Google for Providing search services but realizes it will lose so forces Google to settle by threatening them with further suits concerning the music on company machines" I agree with you on the ClearChannel thing, the air should be free, and it's not. That's bull.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Yes, indeed, just because the person is being charged with murder automatically means they're guilty and don't deserve an equal chance to defend themselves.
What's the point in "innocent until proven guilty" if the prosecution has tons more than the defendant? Sure, it feels good to pretend the suspect is indeed guilty, but too often this isn't the case, and innocent men are jailed (or executed!) because they couldn't afford a good lawyer and the Public Defender is wholly incompetent compared to the District Attorney.
I'm not saying his suggested solution is the right one, only affirming that there is indeed a problem.
RPI isn't a large university. It's located in Troy, New York (near Albany). I lived there for 4 months or so and I can tell you right now that RPI hardly struck me as a large university. Expensive maybe. But we have a _small_ local college that is tens of thousands of dollars too. Ya, maybe I am nitpicking a little bit, so let me say that I still think your point about the money and tuition attracting the RIAA to this particular school is valid. :)
they are picking on the easy people to get to the top so that its easier for them to pick on the big guys, like people on outwar...sounds like a lame tactic to me =/
the settlement was probably for the music he had on his computer.
as for bullying, yes the 98 billion was unfounded. the main thrust of your rant is that he was bullied... but both him and the RIAA knew there was no case for the contributory infringement, thats why he got off with a 12k settlement
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Unless, of course, it's fair use.
The copy of Elton John's Greatest Hits on my machine is a case in point - I don't own the album; I borrowed it from a friend and ripped it. And despite what Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti want you to believe, that is perfectly legal...
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
Someone needs to do a story on how the RIAA steals from the song artists. Perhaps bring legal action against the RIAA for their stealing.
I also found this comment made by the interviewer rather funny, mistaking the goverment for the RIAA, but in truth, they act the same way, and appear to have the same power.
"HEMMER: So if that's the case then, what did the government -- or I'm sorry, I apologize again -- what did the RIAA, the recording industry, come after you and say that you were guilty of?"
Must be at least moderately tender, I would imagine.
I believe that should read "poorly spelt"
There must me more to this story than you're telling, otherwise that's not actually fair use. Fair use is this. Unless you never listen to it and just store it for him for when he wants it (ie, space shifting), you're infringing copyright since you don't have a license to listen to that music, only your friend does.
-Brendan
So what you're saying that if your lawyer is only so-so in terms of skill then the prosection should send in their so-so lawyer as well? If your lawyer is working alone then the prosection should fire their support staff? Is that what you mean by equal?
My point was that lowest common denominator should not be our rule of law. Even if you could make everything even, which you can't - way too many variables, innocent people will still go to jail and guilty people will get off free.
And, yes, indeed, all Public Defender's are complete morons and DA's are brilliant and well-funded. Bravo, you've solved the case.
BTW - I never asserted there was not a problem, only that his solution isn't a solution. I agree that it's horrid when an innocent person loses life or freedom, or when guilty people go free. But I would never suggest that people should be limited in the money they spend on defense because the prosecutor may be overworked. Would you? Where does your sense of "equal chance" begin and end?
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
Come on kids- it could just as easily be one of us in the headlines. Kick the man $5. Consider it your tax for the 300gigs of music and ripped pr0n. Slashdot paypal and help a nerd.
I can't beleive a post with the term "poopy-heads" just got modded up to 5: Insightful.
i actually know dan peng, and i don't know if he'd personally tell you the same story.
why are record companies suing kids who finish high school two years early and become international physics champions? that was dan's profile coming out of high school. haven't talked to him much since then, but i must say it was a shock when i read the story on the internet and saw his name there--it's not every day you read that one of your friends from the past is getting sued for $150,000 per copyright...
You know full well what I meant. Copies of MP3s not for personal use are illegal.
As for comparing it to child porn, that was only an example. No one would try to blame Google for that. However, the RIAA member companies have been claiming that these students made a tool without substantial non-infringing use. That is essentially blaming the search engine for the content.
.nosig
Because the RIAA wants to make an example of these students.
I would highly doubt that a call to local authorities would yield results. Are you confident that your local police force has the technical knowledge to be able to correctly determine what violations, if any, are happening?
I can call my local police department and report the use of marijuana in a residence. However, this does not mean that the police department has the resources to investigate every call like that. They may show up and use scare tactics as much as possible, but I really doubt that anyone would face huge fines or jail time.
Besides, have you heard of probable cause? It would take more than a "simple phone call to the local sherrif [sic]" to motivate the local authorities to go to the trouble of obtaining warrants to search the students' rooms and computer.
By filing civil suits they put pressure on the local authorities to act. Issuing press releases draws attention to the case, both to serve as a warning to potential violators of copyright, and again to pressure the local authorities to act in order to avoid negative press coverage ("Students accused of copyright violation on a local campus; local authorities turn their heads. Film at 11.").
In a case like this, unless the defendants were coordinating a large ring of piracy (which they weren't; running a search engine is not the same as acting as ringleader to a piracy group) they probably wouldn't be arrested, and it would be up to the RIAA to file civil suits seeking compensation for damages.
The RIAA wanted people to see that copyright violation can have expensive consequences. Are you suggesting that a "simple phone call to the local sherrif [sic]" would have generated this much media attention?
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
How about this...
Someone starts a "file-sharing defense fund" to collect donations to defend against RIAA and other industry lawsuits. This person makes is amply obvious that they are sharing ***uncountable*** amounts of files over the internet. Then waits for the RIAA to sue.
Now, there are several possible ways you could burn them with this.
1) Don't share anything copyrighted, so you draw attention to their heavy-handed handling of any kind of file-sharing.
2) Run a search-engine type site like the defendants in this case, and actually duke it out with the RIAA in court (I think a level-field case would probably favor file-sharing)
3) Share what you will, and argue over the copyright infringement laws in court (ie. monetary impact, etc).. this would be hellishly risky, but if you are successful, could really turn the tide on the RIAA.
etc... with the number of people out there who file-share (for whatever reason), or who support file-sharing (for philosophical reasons, which would greatly expand the target population), certainly we could raise enough money to fight the RIAA/MPAA on this.. we just need to organize. Sending letters to your congressmen and bitching about it on slashdot aren't going to accomplish much.. but if Slashdot has 200,000 regulars, and we can recruit more from the non-techie community (on principles), then the potential is there to raise millions, even if each person only contributes $10-20. So for the cost of 1 overpriced CD, you can defend your rights against the evil corporations. Sound good to anyone else?
the moral thing would be to slip into the theater: all actions that hurt the mpaa are moral.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
if even most p2p users were crackers - the *aa pages would NEVER be up! cmon - 250 000 000 - 500 000 000 dedicated crackers could do a lot. so what : when we start assasinating riaa members - will that mean that all p2p members are murderers too?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
> However, the RIAA member companies have been claiming that these students made a
> tool without substantial non-infringing use.
You missed my point i think. The quoted line above is incorrect.
Ok I will grant you that the interview with CNN basically implys that is correct, but CNN also out right said (a tad beyond imply) that the RIAA was the government too...
In the interview however you will see the students comment that he is going to put the search engine back up when he gets back. If that was deemed illegal, he couldnt do that (and should not be saying things such as that, which would only serve to hurt him later.)
The reason he got sued was not due to the search engine, but due to the fact he had a large MP3 collection mostly of copyrighted works owned* by the RIAA.
( * I use the term 'owned' loosly.. i dont aggree with it, but you know what i mean.)
In the past 2 or 3 articles following this case, all of them have said this.
This interview was really horible. Its basically a moron at CNN vs the student who commited a crime of copyright voilation and the CNN interviewer may as well have focused the whole talk on the students sock preference or something equally as non related as his search engine.
But he had these mp3's, he was caught with them, and current law (Current as in its been on the books since Disney changed it 20ish years ago) indeed makes that illegal. THAT is why he settled, because to that charge, he could only plead no contest or guilty, both of which admitting guilt and losing the trial.
The reason he can put his search engine back up is because he most likely will be doing that on a computer that does not have copyrighted MP3s on it as well.
First clarification, yes, I do mean to include criminal cases as well as civil.
Second clarification, there would be some basic allowance. You are allowed to spend a certain amount more than the opposition, or what the opposition is willing to "borrow". I gave the figure of $1000, but just as a number. Maybe a percentage, maybe different amounts for different kinds of lawsuits and crimes.
What stirs me to include criminal cases is stories I have read, I believe concerning Mississippi, where the public defender's budget in capital cases was only $300. Just enough to meet the defendant and tell him to plea bargain. Only a complete idiot would consider that justice.
Amounts used by police are a tough one. Obviously basic police work doesn't count, that is not prosecution money, but there have also been cases of police picking a suspect early, then only looking for evidence to back that up, ignoring evidence to the contrary, and not looking for evidence to the contrary.
But remember, the main goal is not for perfection in the first attempt, merely something better as a next step.
Infuriate left and right
What kind of fucked up country do you live in that making a copy of somebody else's CD is "fair use?"
That's completely wrong.
http://www.eff.org/IP//copyright.faq
3.7) Can I legally make a cassette copy of a musical CD for my own use,
so I can play it in my car?
This issue has been argued back and forth for many years, with consumers
groups arguing that this was a fair use (see sections 2.8 and 2.9), and
the recording industry arguing that it was not. The issue was finally
settled by Congress when the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) (P.L. 102-
563, 106 Stat. 4237, codified at 17 U.S.C. 1001 - 1010) was passed in
October 1992. This Act added ten sections to Title 17, one of which
provided an alternative to the fair use analysis for musical recordings.
The new section states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement
of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or
distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital
audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an
analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a
consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical
recordings or analog musical recordings.
17 U.S.C. 1008.
As the legislative history to this statute noted, "In short, the reported
legislation would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for
making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use."
H.R. Rep. 102-780(I).
Does this mean you can make copies for your family and friends, as long
as it's not "commercial?" A strict reading of the words in the statute
would seem to say that you may. This is not as outrageous as it sounds.
Part of the impetus behind the AHRA was the perception that blank tapes
were being used mostly to copy commercial musical sound recordings. As a
result, the AHRA provided that a royalty payment (referred to as a "DAT
tax" by its detractors) be paid for each sale of digital audio tape to
compensate authors of musical works and sound recordings for the profits
lost due to these copies. See 17 U.S.C. 1003, 1004. Arguably, the AHRA
anticipates and allows exactly this type of copying, and a literal
reading of section 1008 would tend to support this position. But the
AHRA is still sufficiently new this hasn't been tested in court yet.
Note, also, that this section applies only to musical recordings; it
clearly does not include spoken word recordings. Of course, it is still
possible that such a use of a spoken word recording might still be
considered a section 107 fair use (see sections 2.8 and 2.9), even though
section 1008 does not apply to provide a clear exemption.
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.