Slashdot Mirror


RIAA Not Done With Jesse Jordan

digime writes "In a recent Slashdot article it was reported that 19-year-old college student Jesse Jordan gave up his life savings to the RIAA for running a campus search engine. He has recovered over 83% of his savings lost to the RIAA, and his search engine is back up. "The RIAA started yelling and tried to rescind my order of dismissal after they signed it because of comments that I made on CNN.", Jordan says on his site. "A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'"

10 of 488 comments (clear)

  1. The search engine is NOT back up by moonbender · · Score: 5, Informative
    The article says: "He has recovered over 83% of his savings lost to the RIAA, and his search engine is back up."

    Apparently, that is not correct, as it says the following on the search engine's website (also linked in the article):
    The ChewPlastic Campus Search Engine is currently available to the public as a demonstration of the site as it was. NOTE: The files listed through the results on this site are fictitious - they DO NOT EXIST. This means that you cannot download them because they are fake computers on a fake network. While there is a small assortment of files listed in the search engine, they are not meant to represent the actual assortment of files available during the Search Engine's operation.
    He does, however, say "I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal. I have a first amendment right to free speech.", so maybe he intends to bring the search engine back up for real ...
    --
    Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  2. Mirror by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dismissal

    I don't think Jessee will mind a mirror of the settlement PDF.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    1. Re:Mirror by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Informative

      The site is getting slashdotted, here's the post from his blog too:

      I have posted my Order of Dismissal (settlement) to the lawsuit filed against me by the RIAA. As stated in the settlement, I settled solely to avoid the costs of litigation. There is a very long story behind my settlement.

      I am truly appalled by the RIAA's unprofessional conduct in dealing with my case. A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a "dentist" that I would not want to "have another visit with". I will not be intimidated by the RIAA - they're just going to have to put up with me.

      The RIAA started yelling and tried to rescind my order of dismissal after they signed it because of comments that I made on CNN. Despite the $12,000 figure in my settlement, the other terms of the settlement were carefully negotiated over the course of several weeks.

      "My fundamental view is that people should not be able to walk away from a deal they've made.", says RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen in response to California issues over artist contracts. It would seem to follow that the RIAA should understand the concept of a legally binding agreement. If an artist signs a contract and then later decides that they don't like the terms of that contract, the labels should understand now because that is exactly what they did with my dismissal (my dismissal is a legally binding agreement).

      It is time to call the RIAA to task on their clear hypocrisy on many issues. I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal. I have a first amendment right to free speech. On the surface, the RIAA claims to support the right to free speech - but only when it benefits their bottom line. When their victim speaks out against them, they step up the intimidation.

      They were so desperate to undo my dismissal that they were resorting to blatant lies. I have even been accused of tricking the RIAA into signing my dismissal.

      Unfortunately for the RIAA, their basis for undoing the dismissal was so ridiculous that the judge didn't even take up my offer to mediate with the RIAA over their issues with the dismissal - he decided to enter the agreement.

      A number of documents surrounding this issue will soon be published. For now, read my order of dismissal.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  3. Just wait.. by Lysol · · Score: 4, Informative

    until Mary Bono - wife to the late Sonny Bono, who was the father of the blessed Copyright Extension Act - get's into office. Out with Hillary and in with Mary who called the RIAA her 'ideal job'.

    Jesus, what a family legacy..

  4. RTFA and the previous one, and the.... by botzi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hello???
    The guy was not violating any copyrights....
    He's running a search engin, remember?He is NOT, repeat, NOT, hosting the files. Talking about search engins, there's one you should know about.... it's here.... Oh wait.... If you search for ANYKNOWNARTIST.mp3... there's a 25% chance that the robot has indexed a page with a link to the file... Well, damn those criminals, lets sue them....
    As stated in a post above, the RIAA have exactly the same legal right to go after Altavista, Google or whatever.

    --
    1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
  5. Jordan hasn't decided fate of search engine by mrtaco01 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am a reporter for the Washington Times and I interviewed Jesse Jordan on Friday night and he said, "I dont think they want me to run the site anymore, but we shall see about that.It's still a question I haven't really answered, I do plan to follow the agreement."

    He also explained the reason the Phynd search engine is "up" right now is so people can see how it worked and let people decided for themselves if he broke the law and so media members, like myself, can see how it worked and have a better idea of how to describe it in articles.

  6. Re:Where's teh EFF ? by GigsVT · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since it was settled, it sets no precedent.

    If you want to set a precedent, you have to sue someone who can afford to appeal it up to a pretty high level, since precedent is mostly set with appellate court opinions.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  7. Donations by rmohr02 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It seems Jesse has recovered much of his life savings through donations. He has a paypal link on his site (unfortunately I can't give the link to you--it uses post). If you want to donate, go here, sign in/register, and send money to jordaj@rpi.edu

    One of the other college students sued by the RIAA, Daniel Peng, also has a paypal donation page.

  8. Re:No new CDs by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just a note, a CD produced on a personal computer is a burned disc, not a pressed one. Mass produced discs are called pressed because that accurately describes their process of creation. The pits are literally stamped into the reflective layer, then the plastic coating is added. With CD-Rs you have a disc with the plastic and reflective layer already setup. However there is an additonal element, a dye added. A laser is then used to burn the dye to the reflective layer, causing it it become less reflective in the burned spots, giving the same effect to the reader laser as a pit on a pressed disc.

    So, if you are speaking of mass producd silver discs, they are pressed. Individually produced discs off a burner are burned. The distinction can be an important one when you are talking about selling CDs since pressed CDs are much cheaper per unit, but have a higher minimum production run.

  9. What he said on CNN... by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 4, Informative