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."
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
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.
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.
Smooth move, RIAA; this really endears your customers to you.. Talk about cutting your own throat.
Trolling is a art,
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!"
They clearly stated why they agreed to pay instead of fight - it would cost a lot more time and money than either the father or son could spare.
I disagree with their decision on principle, but I don't have the kind of money it would take to defend against the RIAA either. It's extortion, really, and while I wish they would defend themselves, it's hard to say what I'd do in their position.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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
Remember to support your favorite artists and go to their concerts and buy their merch.
I've never bought into this. I don't particularly want to go to concerts. I don't want T-shirts or other such stuff. What I want is a piece of plastic with the music on it; and I'm perfectly willing to pay for the privelege. If the band members signed a contract that doesn't give them money for it, I don't feel terribly sorry for them. I'm certainly not going to pay for something that I don't want, and then go and steal something that I do.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
ping -f www.riaa.org
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.
Actually, this makes sense. How much money would he have been out if he had attempted to fight the lawsuit, and didn't pass his finals because of that? I'm pretty sure that Resalier (sp?) costs at least $12k/semester. Plus he would have been out a whole bunch of time that he spent working on passing those classes. He would have also had lawyer fees, and the time it takes to fight the lawsuit.
So actually, the "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" makes perfect sense if you think about it. The RIAA realized that, and is probably one of the main reasons they chose to go after someone at a large university, instead of someone who was at a local community college with much less to lose by fighting.
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".
Is there anywhere to donate to help pay for the penalty these kids paid? I'd be happy to throw in a few bucks.
RIAA doesn't care who pays his fine. They get the money and publicity either way. If you wanna "fuck" them, give $12,000 to the EFF or ACLU or something like that.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Better yet, change the laws that govern how a corporate entity can sue a human entitiy. Limit damnages that can be claimed and conditions under which it can sue. Setup sever penalties for those corporations that lose. Eliminate the economic incentive to intimidate by litigation.
Honestly, I think a little of both works best.
That is, I don't think you need to limit government prosecution of CRIMINAL cases, but the matching spending idea for CIVIL suits seems like a hell of a good way to even the playing field for the little guy.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
I don't think "The Hulk" will be worth the $12 it will cost me to go see it. So my options are to pay it anyway and see it, save my money and not see it, or sneak into the theatre.
What you are doing is analogous to sneaking into the theatre. The "moral" thing to do would be to just not go to the movie. MP3 theives insist on having their cake and eating it too. Then, they bitch about how bad the song was (while keeping it on their 5,000-song playlist anyway).
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
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."
...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."
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!
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.
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 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."
Especially since it wasn't downloading the mp3s that got him in trouble, it was writing the script that allowed people to *find* mp3s that got him in trouble.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!