Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Grabs Student's Life's Savings
An anonymous reader writes "ABCNews is reporting on a 19-year-old college student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. He created a site named ChewPlastic.com where students could search for files on the university network. Mind you, this is not a music file sharing software, this is just a search engine. Presumably, the search engine was being used to search for music files as well. The folks over at the RIAA did not take too kindly to the idea, and sued the student. He settled but denies any wrongdoing. What was settlement, you ask? His life's savings."
Anybody else find something wrong with that quote? His father is quite right -- by allowing him to deny all charges, they're basically saying he didn't do anything wrong...yet they take his $12,000.
Mike.
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
If you could please send the proper paper work we can get started ASAP. The bully only stays a bully so long, then someone comes along and beats the ever living shit out of that bully and makes them realize that they aren't allowed to be a bully any longer.
Bring it, I'm tired of you picking on all my peers and I'm ready to kick your ass. Remember when you take me to court, IT ALL COMES ON THE TABLE, and I'll subpoena everything!!!
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
The RIAA keeps getting more bold (and ridiculous) in its strong-arm techniques.
Someone very wise once said "Follow the money". The major labels are the RIAA's clientelle, and I think I can reasonably assume they give their ascent to the RIAA's "business practices" (read: extortion), otherwise they'd be very upset about public relations backlash against them and their products. This backlash may happen eventually.
Now assuming that this ascent to these techniques is present, perhaps contractually, what happens when the wrong student is sued, and a very wealthy, but up to now quiet and non-pressworthy relative (such as a rich uncle that the RIAA didn't count on), steps forward and says to his nephew, "No, you are not caving, and I've secured the services of an excellent law firm that specializes in the RICO act."
As I said, follow the money. I look forward to the day when some unassuming student, that was doing nothing wrong, takes the major labels for a few billion. Yes, with a B.
Great, so when the donations finish coming in the RIAA can refile suit to claim unspecified damages from the first litigation. Which, if he didn't have a good lawyer, may be a possibility depending on the wording of the settlement. Not many college students can afford one...
- Sig
Here's a paypal link
(And before anyone asks, that link does actually send the money to him.)
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
My first reaction to the story was to wish someone had referred Jesse and his father to the EFF instead of letting the RIAA bully them into a settlement.
/.'ers X $1 each)
Upon futher reflection though, perhaps the Jordans have made a huge personal sacrifice as part of a very strategic move against the RIAA. IF, and it's a big if, the facts of the case do make it out to the public (i.e. that he was just making a search engine for the campus network, which has plenty of legitimate uses) this may be the match lighting the fuse of a popular boycott of the RIAA.
Maybe not, but whether the plan works or not, we should all donate a bit and help Jesse get his life savings back. (12000
~Kirk
As have been pointed out elsewhere, Microsoft's OSes have built in software to allow searching across networks, which could easily be used to search for MP3s. Does the RIAA intend to go after Microsoft? That wouldn't make much sense, as Microsoft would bury it.
Here's a question. Let's say that a student sets up a web-page explaining how students could use Windows' built-in Search app to find files, including MP3s, across the university's network. Would the RIAA sue the student for merely explaining how to use it?! It think they would.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
- Do a couple of something like: dd if=/dev/zero of=LOTR.Two.Towers.Complete.dvdrip.divx.avi
- Make a webpage with links to your fake warez and post it to search engines.
- Repeat the previous with different variations
- Wait for your ISP or the RIAA to contact you.
- Reply with a polite and legally correct letter asking for proof that you have infringed on someones copyright... This letter could be prepared by someone from the filesharing community who has studied law. Please someone fill in the details here
- Goto 1.
IANAL, would this work? A couple hundred thousand of these fake cases could perhaps force the RIAA to go after the real bad guys -- the ones that make pirating a business.Yes, but if the record companies don't make that advance back from sales, they recover it from the artist. Same with any publishers' advance; my father once had to pay back about 1000 GBP after disappointing sales of one of his books. That was on a 3000 GBP advance.
About 12 years ago I knew a band who had several records out, and had just returned to the UK from their second successful tour of the States. They were all signing on the dole. Heck, they came and played in a pub where I worked, in return for 10 GBP per head and free beer.
The rock'n'roll lifestyle isn't all it's cracked up to be...
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
The biggest problem I've had is that no candidate supports my position. If I disagree with everyone, who the FSCK should I vote for? The lesser of several evils?
I'd run myself, but even disregarding the money issues I'd have, there are minimum ages for members of Congress...
Show me a candidate who represents me, and I'll vote for him.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
>Why didn't university help him?
Or, to put it another way, "Just how much of a typical university's operating budget is comprised of funds from corperate sources?"
I wonder if universities are becoming less and less 'able' to help bite the hands that feed them. There've certainly been a number of high profile cases in the past 15 years where students have run afoul of corperate wishes, and the university has sided with the corperation out of contractual neccessity.
"Old man yells at systemd"
First off, this mortifies me. I don't think I'll ever purchase another bit/byte of comercial music media... OK, on to the question:
So this kid setteled and the RIAA agreed to obsolve him of any wrong doing. I'm assuming this means he can continue to operate his site as is without modification, since he got to pay them 12k to agree that he didn't do anything (ridiculous!!!). So, assuming he doesn't have to stop what he was doing, does the fact that they agreed that he did no wrong keep them from being able to sue him for the same thing again?
If you don't have something nice to sig, then don't sig anything at all.
My suggestion is to download the music, and then contribute directly to the artists, doing and end-run around the 'AAs.
Sure, technically, it's still stealing, there's no denying that, but all you'd really be doing is getting the money to the people who actually deserve it, and not the crooks who are stealing from them in the first place.
If I were an artist on one of these major labels (God forbid), I'd much rather have a fan tell me that he/she downloaded my music illegally and then give me a couple of bucks out of appreciation rather than buy a CD off the rack for $17.99, and I get the nickel or dime or whatever for creating the music, while the record company makes the lion's share.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Talk about blatant intimidation...
T echTV/tech tv_RIAAvsteen030609.html
"You go to the site, you type in a search term, and it finds files on the network," Jordan said. Jordan compares his site to Google, the popular Internet search engine.
[Ed: "I built a tool to help people find stuff. I'm getting sued?"]
But the RIAA likens Jordan's site to Napster, the now defunct song-swap service that revolutionized the distribution of music.
"The people who run these Napster networks know full well what they are doing: Operating a sophisticated network designed to enable widespread music thievery," Cary Sherman, the president of the RIAA, said in a statement issued April 3.
"The lawsuits we've filed represent an appropriate step given the seriousness of the offense," Sherman added.
[Ed: "I don't care what it is, it's ruining my business damnit!"]
"I didn't tell people what to share. I never promoted piracy," Jordan said.
[Ed: "I built a tool to help people find stuff. I'm getting sued?"]
"Basically, Napster set out to create its own network specifically for music. What I did was ran a search engine on a campus network [where] the network already existed," Jordan said.
But Jordan did agree to pony up $12,000, his entire savings account, to the RIAA. Jordan and his father, Andy Jordan, felt the settlement was their best option.
[Ed: "They said they would leave me alone if I gave them everything I had."]
"They agreed to allow Jesse to deny their allegations. They agreed to dismiss the case and all allegations against him," Andy said. "Basically they agreed that he didn't do anything wrong, but [they're] taking his 12 grand."
[Ed: "Give us everything you have and we'll forget all about it." Taking cues from Tony Saprano?]
Jesse knew students were sharing files on his network: pictures, PowerPoint presentations, physics notes, anime, and music. But he refutes the RIAA's claim he "hijacked an academic network" and "installed an emporium for music trading."
[Ed: "He's a terrorist to boot!"]
Ruining the Music Business?
Andy believes that the RIAA's intimidating tactics will undoubtedly hurt the music industry by alienating music buyers. An avid music fan for more than 40 years, he shudders at the impact this will have on the industry's most fervent fans.
"I don't know how strongly the music companies â" the people who really run the music companies â" I don't know if they realize what the impact of this misguided attempt at intimidation is going to be," Andy said.
While Andy questions the motives and actions of the RIAA, he basks in pride at his son's steadfast resolve.
[Ed: Exactly what motives do you need to question? Duh.]
"He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this and he's said, 'You are not going to make me say something that's not true,'" Andy said.
ChewPlastic.com is asking for donations to help recover the $12,000 settlement. As of June 6, the site has collected more than $1,700.
Original article:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
I wonder if he contacted the ACLU.
His particular product is effectively an information tool. It was designed to catalog information and present it to potential users.
RIAA's legal action is effectively a gag order. It says, "You can't say anything because it may be against OUR interest". Thats DEFINITELY a FREE SPEECH issue.
I'm wondering where his university stood on this issue. Did CS professors come out and defend his right to to this?? If not it's a bunch of BS. Any good professor would congratulate his student for creating free (and useful) software.
The only mildly beneficial aspect of this case is that this isn't a ruling. It cannot be used as legal precedent in court. The issue over search engines and whether they're covered under DMCA is still open.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Unfortunately, going to concerts often involves supporting TicketBastard and ClearChannel, both of whom are close in evilness to the RIAA.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I disagree. A good defense attorney would be able to get the case dismissed if the RIAA failed to go anywhere with it in a reasonable amount of time. $12,000 should have been plenty of money for what in reality is a very, very simple case with little evidence to present and so forth. This isn't Congress - the RIAA can't just indefinitely filibuster.
In the event that the court found in the kid's favor, it is likely he could have countersued, FOR FREE, if some lawyer decided they had a good chance of reaching into the RIAA's deep pockets. The lawyer's fees would come out of the RIAA's settlement.
The way they handled this is completely stupid, in my opinion.
You can look up my voting record (whether I voted or not, not the candidate) at the Cleveland County Voter Registration Board. I'm a registered Democrat in a state of Republicans. I just laugh when these stupid ass people of oklahoma bitch about having to lay off half our teachers, cut back on social programs, and raise local taxes to pay for basic services. I just tell them "you get what you vote for, did you think the republican party gives a shit about poor ass oklahoma?". I wish everyone was required to do 3 things in life, 1. Wait tables, 2. Get a degree in economics before being able to vote, and 3. work for organizations that do social programs for free.
When the federal government takes in less money, Oklahoma suffers more. Most people don't realize we are a subsidized state (as are most of the small populated mid-western/western states).
I just sent him $50 - that's the least I can do.
(Down with the RIAA!)
--- My dad's political betting
If we can't write bug-free code, I certainly don't imagine legislators can produce bug-free legislation.
The primary purpose of common law is to allow for errors and omissions in legislation to be corrected by recourse to common sense and long-accepted principles in interpretation of that legislation. Lose the common law, and you lose the last vestiges of freedom.
For example: in the UK all public highways are property of the Crown ("the Queen's Highway"). The right of ordinary citizens to use public highways ("right of way") is primarily enshrined in common law. Thus any law which could be interpreted by the police as permitting them to deny right of way to certain people on grounds of societal prejudice could be overturned on the grounds that such interpretation (and possibly the legislation itself) was contrary to common law.
Of course, in practice a case may be dragged all the way to the House of Lords ( == highest court) over a period of years before such a ruling is made, but it's nice to know that a magistrates' court ( == lowest court) can't just say "That's what it says in the book, so you can't appeal".
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
A BuyNoCDs day would be perfect. We should use a relevant date, either the date that CDs became available, or the date that Napster officially stopped functioning. But to do it we should look into making a lot of publicity, otherwise it won't work at all. (i.e. somebody's got to stand in front of the building with flyers) Ideas anyone? I think showing the industry just how 'up' sales have been is a good idea. Boycotts do get attention, if properly done...
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
I agree a search engine, in and of itself, isn't wrong. Prosecute the people who abuse the tool, not the tool makers, right?
Well, what happens when it's the same person doing both? When this was first posted on
The actual complaint is here:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/riaa/ar
Among other claims, it says:
Now, I haven't heard his side of the story. Maybe this allegation is totally false, but if it was I would think there would be a huge stink about it here.
I'm not saying the search engine wasn't the main thrust of the RIAA's complaint. I'm not saying $12,000 is a reasonable settlement. I'm just saying there is a whole hell of a lot of "he didn't do anything wrong" talk, when in fact it seems that he might have.
If nothing else, his taste in music borders on criminal.