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'"

Comments

The RIAA are legal terrorists

[Tuxinatorium]

These are the folks who ashcroft should be worrying about.

Where's teh EFF ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[dipipanone]

Yeah, but the law is not blind.

No, it can definitely see the size of your wallet. The problem it has is seeing what counts as justice.

Just because it's only a search engine doesn't exempt it from the fact its primary use was to find and distribute copyrighted materials. The reason google and alta vista are immune is they're searches are not primarily used for illegal purposes.

Bullshit. The law doesn't distinguish what something is 'primarily' used for. If something has a legitimate use, then it's perfectly legal. The primary use of cigarette papers is probably to roll joints these days, but because they can be used to make hand-rolled cigarettes, they aren't illegal. Similarly, look at the recent Californian decision over Kazaa. Kazaa is unquestionably primarily used to download warez, mpegs and mp3's, but because it can have other legitimate uses, their defence against the RIAA prevailed.

As I recall, most states require a permit to own a lockpick.

If so, it's because they've passed a law requiring such. Point us to an equivalent law outlawing the use of search engines...

the law sucks..

[SystematicPsycho]

What sucks about the legal system is that anyone can make something up and file a law suit against you, and if you don't have the funds to deal with and defend the allegation then you're screwed in court.

The RIAA was probably looking to make an example out of this person(making examples out of people is what they love) and probably got unlucky with this guy. The best weapon that these guys _think they have against activity they don't like is a detterant (making examples out of people for fun and profit). They'll do it again at a time of their choosing, they've got the dough and the legal beagles to screw with you.

Lawyers are like legal hitmen, give them enough money and they'll do anything you want - desperados, got to feed the family.

move the site

[rf0]

Would not moving the site and the contents outside the US help avoid this or would the person still be responsbile?

Rus

Re:It is time for a major BOYCOTT

[jeffasselin]

Yes, a boycott. That way, RIAA sales will go even further down, and they'll continue to blame piracy

"See it's rampant, and increasing, our sales are even lower than they were! We must have the right to destroy those evil pirates' computers"

Which will not help at all until EVERYONE gets in, and that won't happen very soon. And we still need to enjoy music, and some mainstream music is good, it's just that most of it is so identical to the last one out.

The real problem is the power of corporate america, how they can bully through legal system, how they can bully politicians and buy laws in their favor, how it takes a superhuman effort from the populace to defeat such lawsuits or stop such laws from being passed. Congressmen do not really bother listening to their own constituents (as they understand their re-election is more dependent on the cash they get from corporations than on the votes of the people they're supposed to represent), and it takes a LOT of noise to make them do so.

So you either need changes in the legal and electoral system, or you need changes in the rights of corporations. Take your pick. I'd go for some of all three. One, it's forbidden for one party to spend more on defense than the other party can afford, unless you agree to pay for both defenses upfront and cannot get it back later. THAT would deter frivolous lawsuits. Two, No more soft money and contributions are limited in proportion to the number of people living in the area, and donations from a single person is also severely limited. A corporation cannot give more than a single individual could. Three, corporations cannot bring lawsuits against individuals with whom they do not have a business relationship without prior approval from a judge.

There's a whole lot of media I just do without..

[dentar]

I don't even bother anymore. There's nothing on CD that I even WANT. I'm an old fart now, and don't much care for their content anymore.

I also don't much care for CNN / MSNBC / Faux News, so I don't watch them anymore either. I've also quit watching clear channel stations.

The news, and musical artists, are both manufactured now, nothing's real anymore.

Legal Ethics violation

[bear_phillips]

"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'"

Could this be an ethics violation? Each state bar association has its own ethics rules. It could be possible that making threats like this, threating to rescind a lawsuit etc.., could be an ethics violation. Especially if it was done without any legal basis and only as a threat. It might be good to file an ethics complaint with that states bar. It might not get him punished, but it would probably be a thorn in his side.

A law professor of mine was a US attorney. He said that when they had a case against a mafia figure, the mob attornyes would ALWAYS file an ethics complaint against the prosecutors. The complaints always proved false, but they would show that the mob was willing to fight hard and would sometimes shake up the government attorney. Having an ongoing ethics investigation could prevent an attorney from getting a new job, promotion etc.

IANAL

Re:From Slashdot?

[Skiboo]

No MPAA or RIAA member has gotten any of my money in twenty years

Ever bought a CD-R?

Re:Search engine might be "back online," but...

[Alsee]

Oh, how useful.

Have you read the terms of use?

Terms of Use: As of January 15, by using Phynd, you agree to have your shared (non-password protected) data indexed. Do not worry, if you do not wish to have your files indexed in Phynd, just add a password to your shares. Alternatively, if you would like to be removed from the database, please use the Feedback form and I will remove you within 24 hours.

Bringing Phynd back up in "dummy mode" is a means of collecting permission to index people's files. His original case was severely prejudiced by the fact that he himself was sharing files. His case was weak because he did not get authorization to index people's files. And he did not provide a removal mechanism.

I am going to seriously oversimplify the settment here and say that it pretty much says that he can't do anything illegal and that he can't knowingly facillitate illegal downloads. If the service goes live again I assume his will honor copyright holder requests for the removal of specific links to infringing files.

This kid's got a huge set of balls flaunting his system in the RIAA's face. It all boils down to whether he got good legal advice or not. There is good reason to think the premise of the Phynd system is perfectly legal. With these minor changes he may be perfectly entitled to bring his system back up. If the RIAA tries anything he may in fact win a suit against the RIAA. Worst case the RIAA wins a hundred billion dollar suit against him and he files for bankruptcy. Not only does he have virtually nothing to lose, it would wipe out the three year $7000 debt he still owes to the RIAA. By suing and winning the RIAA could conceivably wind up getting LESS money from him than if they do nothing.

-