Slashdot Mirror
MIT, Boston College Refuse DMCA Subpoenas
phreakmonkey writes "Here's an interesting change of pace- According to today's Boston Globe, MIT and Boston College have both refused to turn over the identities of students to the RIAA under subpoenas. Citing failure of compliance with court rules and student privacy concerns, both colleges have refused to give out the names, addresses, or phone numbers of students based on their Kazaa screen names and IP addresses. I wonder how long the schools will be able to keep the RIAA's pack of lawyers at bay..."
More than simply the temporary blockade for the army of RIAA lawyers which that organization will refer to them as, these new subpoena challenges will hopefully catalyze a new set of appeals that finally lead to some kind of constitutionality ruling, by the Supreme court, about the controversial section of the DMCA which allows these privacy infringements, and consequently, about the heavily-industry-influenced DMCA as a whole...
If there's one thing I can say about the colleges who did this, it's that I have respect for them. By not backing down and not giving into the demands of coporate america, they are setting a precedent for others, and are showing that we are not all going to bow to them. Respect.
Canadian Cynic, canadian politics is less boring than you
I'd be impressed if Harvard did it... I'm fairly certain that they have enough lawyers to defend against the likes of the RIAA :)
these guys can put up a good fight... It'll keep the second years busy anyway.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
What we really need is a renound LAW school to stand up to them.
That will provide results.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Interesting that the article mentions Dave Matthews and Radiohead since they both have always been in support of file-sharing...
Mike
Imagine the turmoil to a school administrator, knowing their students' life savings are about to get sucked up by the RIAA for sharing a few songs.
I hope more colleges follow their lead.
The BC guy even said that once the subpoena was filed 'correctly' they would comply (not they have a choice, of course). But this is more of a procedural issue then anything else. Of course, it shows that they are not interested in simply handing over names and IP address without actually needing too.
I wish my school was more interested in protecting student rights. The University "Police" gladly assisted in a 'raid' on a couple student's dorm rooms, after checking their class schedule to see when they had class, and thus out of the room (which is a pretty big assumption, given the propensity to skip class around here... but it turned out to be true)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Just kidding!
(not really)
...am too..really
shhh...not.
Would be sweet if the nerds down there would unleash some futuristic greedy-bastard-ass-kicking robots as a preemptive strike ;)
United States of America, good ol' backers of world peace.
Hrmmm. I hope the schools maintain their privacy (for privacy's sake not to protect piracy), but I fear that the RIAA will start to pressure the donors of these schools (where many $$'s for research and support come from).
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I remember people saying: "Just wait until a child of a senator gets busted downloading MP3's". This story tells us why this is not going to happen. They pay the exorbitant tuition not only for the name of the school but also for other services. Including a protection of privacy you would not get anywhere else. And that's why no senator kid is going to get busted sharing some thousand mp3's.
After reading this article, you can see that the schools will comply with the RIAA. The schools' problem is that they don't believe the subpoenas were correctly filed. They claim that they also had too little time to notify the students, which is required by some other federal laws.
So don't get your hopes up just yet. On the plus side, the RIAA said that they don't want to refile. So this may get interesting.
In what I've read so far, the two Boston colleges refused the subpoenas based on (1) they were filed in a Washington DC court and served in Boston's district, and (2) the colleges were not given sufficient time to prepare the information before the stated due dates. Essentially, in order to comply with the suits, they would violate their own respective privacy policies. However, there was nothing stated that the respective colleges would not comply once the suits are resubmitted according to their guidelines...
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
More like, "how long will the schools be able to justify spending thousands of dollars to protect the identities of students breaking the law."
Please help metamoderate.
And the RIAA will say "never mind" and drop it, if it looks to be heading that way. They have a bully mentality, and no stomach for a legal showdown at the OK Corral.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Let's name names. Who are the RIAA representatives and their lawyers? Where do THEY live? What's THEIR phone number? What's THEIR email address? (Come on, somebody's got to have this info)
Talk about burying the lede. The Boston Globe buried the most important issue in the last paragraph:
It is this issue that might make a difference. If the provision of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act for issuing subpoenas without judicial action is ruled unconstitutional, and the ruling is upheld, then the efforts of the RIAA will be stopped in their tracks until the law is rewritten.
The rest of the university objections amount to no more than a short-term fight over notice and venue:
Even if MIT is right, these are problems the RIAA can easily remedy. If the RIAA has to file the actions locally, instead of filing them all in Washington, D.C., it will. If the RIAA has to provide more time for notice, it will. Neither of these issues will halt the onslaught for long.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
This path has already been traveled by Verizon, so unless BC and MIT have some new legal angle, they're just wasting their money on lawyer.
Vote for Pedro
Having famous, reputable organizations defying the RIAA is very important, because it lends credibility to the fight against the music industry, which is crucial at this point.
Despite all this battling against the RIAA's lawsuits, though, it seems to me that the real issue here (which isn't being addressed) is not file sharing but everything the RIAA stands for and represents. Why isn't anyone attacking their price-fixing and essential monopoly of the industry? I know there was a lawsuit against them for the price-fixing, I believe, but I for one am not seeing any changes.
Obviously, I'm not the most informed on the details of the whole issue, but is it possible that the RIAA's big scare tactics and legal onslaught against file sharers is just to take peoples' eyes off of the real problem?
Instead of waiting for a case to make it to the supreme court, why not join an organization like the EFF and start writing letters to your senators now?
J
What happens when we convince all of these poor students not to settle?
Can they defend pro-se, loose the case, declare bankruptcy, and leave the RIAA to pay its own lawyers for thousands of suits nationwide?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
From the article: ...In a subpoena addressed to MIT, the association is demanding the name, address, and phone number of a student who used the nickname ''crazyface'' to download at least five songs, including Radiohead's ''Idioteque'' and Dave Matthews Band's ''Ants Marching.''...
So lets get this straight - the (alleged) student used the nickname "crazyface" to download "at least" 5 songs? How do they know this unless they were sharing the songs and monitoring who downloaded them in the first place? Does this mean that the RIAA were sharing songs on KaZaa??
If this is the case, are they also not liable under the DMCA?
This is a very "special" piece of legislation that I suspect will be destroyed before too long, even given the current Supreme Court's tendencies to do what they want instead of what the Constitution demands.
See... if any copyright holder can issue any subpoena for any reason without a judge's support then...
hey... guess what...
Every paper I've ever written is copyrighted by me. I could register one/all of these, and then go off sending these subpoenas out at... everybody on the entire internet, and since no judge has to approve it, and the recipients are legally obligated to respond, I could build lists of persons names, addresses, telephone numbers, ISPs, and IP addresses...
now, dial-up users would change IPs frequently, but not broadband users.
Now, thanks to all the information I'll get from the ISPs I could even see where these users have been going on the internet. (if such logs are available -- and if not, well, then pretend that instead of me doing this its doubleclick, which has ads (and thus tracking) on more webpages than anyone could hope to ever count), and do all sorts of cool things: identity theft (ok, that would be illegal, but easy), very targetted marketing (very valuable -- go from what URLs surfed to stuff in your physical mail box) or just sell these lists to other companies who didn't want to go through the hassle of collecting the info, or any other number of things that would be bad.
So. Verizon, keep on appealling, I think you will win, and in the meanwhile know that we support your efforts!
Oh, and yay to the schools too, please continue to fight!
I disagree. The decision makers in this case were, at MIT at least, students themselves at one time. They recall only too well the keg parties, panty raids, and VWs transported into dorm rooms of their student days. The 'net keeps the kids in their rooms, keeps 'em busy, keeps 'em out of trouble. Shut down the 'net? Are you insane? We cannot afford the consequences, the social turmoil, the civic unrest. Shut down the 'net? What's next, women athletes ripping off their tops? Tear up those subpoenas or face a wholesale return to the days of free sex!
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
Democracy: two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch
Liberty: a well armed sheep expressing his rights.
It looks like sheep have arisen. I for one...
I know the head of the MIT network. He is a VERY good tech guy with bonafide IETF credentials in security, and the legal aspects of security.
I used to love listening to him at lunch at conferences talking about the various legal troubles that MIT students would get into including the infamous bonsai kitten website rap. He talked about how a couple of armed Humane Society officers showed up in his office one day to demand he reviel what he knew about the students that put up the website.
His response was, "I can't tell you that, you have passed student privacy laws that prevent me from reveiling the students name". Officers left in a huff, but Jeff was right.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
The Department of Education Website has a nice primer on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99), a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records.
I should note there are exceptions listed:
* School officials with legitimate educational interest;
* Other schools to which a student is transferring;
* Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes;
* Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student;
* Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school;
* Accrediting organizations;
* To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;
* Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and
* State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law.
Interesting they allow "judicial order or lawfully issue subpoena"
Education institutions, on the other hand, have previously existing restrictions on handling and protecting student records as defined by FERPA. As the article states, MIT expresses willingness to comply with properly issued subpoenas. Essentially, these institutions are asking the courts to establish which law has primacy, FERPA or DMCA, because the current situation potentially leaves them open to lawsuits brought by students over violation of privacy as outlined in FERPA if they comply with the DMCA-based information requests.
__
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
More than simply the temporary blockade for the army of RIAA lawyers which that organization will refer to them as
Considering MIT has a 5 billion dollar endowment, I doubt very much that the RIAA will be able to outspend them. Besides which, after a while you start getting diminishing returns when hiring lawyers; once you have a large legal team working fulltime on a case, throwing money at them doesn't do anything.
That's basically true of most legal questions. For instance, the applicability of the Second Amendment to gun-issues is quite rare. The reason is that as soon as either side tries to push for a definitive ruling, it's going to go to the Supreme Court, and once there it's a crapshoot as to how they'll rule. As a result, the Second Amendment is almost never brought up in court by either side (though they may bring it up outside the courtroom).
CNN Article
Student goes to class only to come back to find his computer, some financial documents, and their booze replaced with a copy of a warrant.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I knew the DMCA was designed to give the companies that bought the votes ridiculous powers, but this is beyond scary:
Under a provision of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed by Congress to combat music piracy, music companies may issue the subpoenas without a judge's approval.
Private companies can issue subpoenas!!
Doesn't that violate the Constitutionally guaraneed right to Due Process?
I think that Boston globe mixed up downloading and uploading. My impression is that RIAA can only really track users that are actively sharing files and only after a requesting that file and successfully downloading at least parts of it can they conclude that the person in other end is engaging in copyright infringing activities.
Now, being an MIT student I've heard of people who had been sharing files and were contacted by the IT department and asked to stop doing so (or they'd cut them off). They don't really care about downloading but uploading is bad. Generally they can only detect major bandwidth hoggers (of course easier to notice upstream peaks) so it might be a case of just some isolated kazaa-client used by a summer school student (not regular mit material) who was dum enough to not switch sharing off.
MIT's network btw. is completely open to the internet. Each dorm room computer is hooked directly on net without any firewalls. Students can get their own static ip addresses and dns entries in the form whatever.mit.edu. You can also use dhcp around campus and I'll bet that none of the addresses are logged. Alternatively you could also just pick an address in the right subnetwork and hope that nobody else is using it (not a good idea, unless you know what you're doing - any problems could get your net access revoked).
After some deliberation MIT could also say: sorry, ip address 1.2.3.4 was dynamically allocated and we don't hold records of the dynamic allocations. Better luck next time. Then again, the above is mostly just my impressions and I could be wrong in some of them.
Under a provision of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed by Congress to combat music piracy, music companies may issue the subpoenas without a judge's approval.
Far out. Anyone know exactly what the provision entails?
:wq
...I must say your argument is utter hogwash. It is merely the "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care about privacy" strawman dressed up in different clothes.
How is it privacy infringement? You're doing something illegal (copyright infringement), you are then caught, and you are then identified. Is their a reasonable expectation of privacy when transmitting your IP address to millions of other users when using Kaazaa? Hardly.
How is it privacy infringement? You're doing something illegal (conducting illegal business on the telephone), you are then caught, and you are then identified. Is their [sic] a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are talking on the telephone on a switchboard of millions of other citizens while talking? Hardly.
One reasonably expects one's communications to be private, whether it is by mail, telephone, or internet. Even large private meetings (private business teleconferences, etc.) have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The internet is really no different, and were lawmakers and the law at all sane ISPs would have the same common carrier status afforded the Bells.
You want to arrest someone for doing something illegal on the internet? Fine. Get your subpeana, go through the standard wiretapping process (complete with court order, etc.) and then invade someone's privacy as part of an official investigation by law enforcement who are held accountable to the public.
Do not allow private corporations and their lawyers to simply invade one's electronic home and communications at will, bypassing the entire intent and letter of the reasonable search and seizure clause of the constitution, and accountable only to their own shareholders. Or, if you do advocate such obscenely undemocratic violations of people's basic civil rights to due process and privacy, do not expect any legitimacy or sympathy from the rest of us, regardless of how despicable the actions were of those you are trampling over the constitution to get.
Next you'll be arguing the police should put cameras in our homes or listen in on every phone call, simply because somewhere out there there is a dirty old man molesting a child or someone contracting a murder for hire.
"Do it for the children! Stop Crime!"
What you suggest is the digital equivelent of a camera in every home and a wiretap on every phone, and it has no place whatsoever in a free society irrespective of what crimes a few idiots (or a billion idiots) may be committing.
Constitutional safeguards and legal procedure is there for a very important reason: to afford all of us protections regardless of our guilt or innocence. A damn good thing, too, as with the current laws on the books every single one of us is guilty of breaking some law, somewhere, nearly each and every day we get out of bed. Want private thugs in pin stripe suits enforcing all those laws against you, and breaking down your door to do so?
No?
Then stop advocating unconstitutional and draconian behavior, merely because the target of your particular ire threatens your outdated business models, or offends your notions of right and wrong. Because I guarantee you, somewhere, sometimes, you are offending someone else's notion of right and wrong, and once you open up that door you too will be on the wrong end of someone else's personal or business "enforcement action," and civil government accountable to the people will have been replaced by corporate, plutocratic fascism accountable to only a few CEOs and shareholders as they trample over the rest of us.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
You're doing something illegal (copyright infringement), you are then caught, and you are then identified
How bout this, the MIT student is getting sued for DOWNLOADING MP3s. What if he/she already owns the CDs in question?
Mega beers for the first person to get a subpoena form the RIAA for downloading thousands of MP3s of CDs they already own. If had any balz, I'd do it myself.
Ever hear of a wonderful thing called Due Process. Well, it's all going out the window now. Unless you are rich enough to hire some good lawyers you no longer have the right to Due Process.
If somebody believes they have evidence of criminal behavior they should have to take it to a Court of Law which would then issue a subpeona or warrent. But in our New World Order big corporations merely have to finger you and you are presumed guilty. So lovely.
Those two Universities are at the forefront of Intellectual Property Law. If they get their faculty on board, I can assure you they have more legal firepower than Verizon. In any case, this point is moot since they don't seem like they're trying to fight it.
At least, they delayed the intrusion and they gave their students ample notice that they were going to be raided. That's not bad.
That's a good question actually. It is a violation of privacy (I've never seen that called "privacy infringement"...are you affiliated with the RIAA?) because the DMCA allows the lawyers acting on behalf of the RIAA to obtain these subpoenas without sufficient judicial oversight. They file their claims with a clerk, pay the fee, and voila! Usually, to obtain a subpoena that grants the right to violate the Fourth Amendment, one must actually prove harm sufficient enough to justify the violation of that Constitutional right to a judge. But thanks to the good ole DMCA (a copyright lawyer's bestest friend!), the quaint notion that you must actually prove your case before being granted a subpoena has been neatly side-stepped.
Hmmmm....so let's apply your logic to another set of criminal circumstances. You're doing something illegal (selling crack), you are then caught, and you are then identified. See, when it comes to selling crack, the police have to actually identify the offender first in order to obtain a warrant. (And, by the way, warrants are issued by judges...not clerks.)
I do think you have a good legal argument with your final statement but the existence of proxies nullifies it on a technical level. (Then again, how often does technical common sense actually scale with legal theories?) How many of the 871 subpoenas obtained by the RIAA will turn out to be people running open proxies on the Internet? Last I heard, we haven't made that illegal yet.
"Privacy infringement"....I do like that term. It's a nice check on the power we've given to those who are rabid in their pursuit of unsubstantiated losses due to copyright infringement.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
So what about the rest of reality?
.torrent file out and dealt with the central tracker issue, finding people becomes that much harder... Is the person unknowingly distributing the information, or do they do it on purpose... It puts an interesting twist on the questions. It's like in the article where they traced a IP to a room, but they don't know which machine was using it, so Oooops! my hard drive had a catastrophic failure that involved my trading it with a friend and losing it somewhere... Now who do you sue?
I'm sure that most people want to know what is happening with respect to the DMCA and the RIAA being annoying to all of us... But what is the RIAA or equivalents doing in the rest of the world along the same vein? I live in Canada and use random P2P utilities often. What are they going to try up here?
And that leads to another issue, if they don't bother people in other countries, what happens when people figure out how to use locations in other countries to hide their actions? Hackers do it, I've seen that plenty, what happens when the P2P downloaders figure out how to do it and automate it. Or create zombie programs that basically turn any infected computer into a P2P forwarder, like the spam virii that are out there these days?
And then there will be the day when something like waste or freenet will be common... what do they do then? I may chose to let the software and network store a certain amount of information on my system, but I don't know what is in there, and cannot find out. Will I still be liable?
This random collection of (possibly badly placed) lawsuits will definatly lead to people just finding a way to stop the lawsuits. Lawsuits are annoying, and people find ways to avoid things that annoy them.
As I said about BT, if someone started to get a good setup that used Freenet to get the
Anyway, just my thoughts...
On Arrakis: early worm gets the bird. Magister mundi sum!
Yeah, right.....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I know this is all about file sharing and stopping P2P users from downloading copyrighted material but this issue has now transformed into something much larger.
The main issue is now your rights as guaranteed under our constitution. How the hell can the RIAA issue supoenas without judicial oversight? I'm not aware of any govermental department that can issue supoenas on a whim and on an as needed basis at the federal or local level. Our rights in the constitution guarantee us from unlawful prosecution so this RIAA gifted law as madated by paid off politicians is inherently flawed at it's core.
Is it going to take the RIAA busting in your house and holding you at gunpoint treating you as an enemy combatant to realize wtf is going on here? This is bordering on insanity. Prosecuting users at whim with little or no proof and throwing them into financial ruin over an mp3? These aren't the big fish or anywhere near it.
As said previously there is clear and open PIRACY not infringement in many foreign countries and our own where many elements play a part in mass producing cds and dvds to sell on the open market.
P2P is not the black market.
It is the sampling pool for future purchasers of the product the RIAA is demonizing into something that is to be resented and despised. I know there are people out there who just dl and don't buy but my experience is most do buy but as our rights are restricted and our choices limited how long will the buying continue?
I myself no longer buy because I'm not supporting the RIAA period. I have never seen a group of supposedly savvy business people be so ignorant to what is going on in their own market.
Consumers are voting with their wallets so now they want to sue us into submission? How is this progressive thinking?
I will not let the RIAA impose what they think is best for me.
I will not let the RIAA make my decisions on who, what, when, where, and how I listen and buy my music.
I will not give into to this bullying and I will not support them again.
A business entity is buying laws that restrict our freedoms and making downloading entertainment a crime more severe than violent crime with much harsher punishment. I keep asking myself when will people wake up to this and do something or in this case nothing-meaning boycotting cd/music sales?
The ramifications for these laws being passed are far reaching so take a cold hard look at what's going on before it's too late...
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
I've read the first few replies to this, and aside from the fact that a lot of people seem to have misunderstood the situation (the colleges will comply, they're basically just objecting to incorrectly filed paperwork) everyone thinks this is great.
It is not an abuse of the court system to take legal action against someone who is breaking the law. The fact that these kids may be at college doesn't excuse being criminals.
If, as you say, it is the responsibility of the colleges to manage their own networks, then what do you say about a college that condones breaking the law by taking no action to prevent it?
If colleges don't take reasonable action to prevent the users of their networks breaking the law using those networks, then whose place do you think it is? Clearly central government don't have the resources to combat this problem effectively, which is why they pushed through the DMCA in the first place.
As usual, this comes down to "me, too" bitching about how unfair the RIAA is, and as usual it's aiming at the wrong target. You have a legitimate complaint that the RIAA and those they represent abuse an effective monopoly position to overcharge for the goods they sell. You do not have a legitimate complaint when people who have broken the law get chased down for it.
If the colleges concerned actually were trying to prevent that, they wouldn't be heroes, they'd be accomplices. However, since they're not, they're simply being professional and not giving out private details until a properly filed order requires them to do so.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Before the ISP's just get fed up with this and lobby congress to have some sort of protection clause against these lawsuits. I remember reading a while back that all these subpoenas are costing the ISP's a fair amount of money since they have to use there own employees (that should be doing other things) into spending a LOT of man hours and money in getting the info that the RIAA is demanding. Considering that the lawsuits and subpoenas are getting more numerous, there has to be a point where they say the hell with it and brib..er give campaign contributions to there own congressman.
Hate to pop your bubble, but there is no violation of the 4th amendment here. The 4th amendment simply requires a warrant, sworn out by a court upon probable cause and that specifically describes the search and seizure to be conducted.
The second branch of the government (you know that pesky branch that is elected by the people), has instructed the courts via legislation, that evidence of illegal downloading is, ipso facto, sufficient evidence and probable cause. Therefore, there is no need for judicial review, and the clerk (who is an official of the court) can simply sign the supboena.)
Personally, I find it a bit refreshing that the representatives elected by the people are defining this instead of a few robed justices on a bench acting like dictators. We have too many judges making law already from the bench. The Arizona state supreme court has even had the temerity to rule on multiple occasions that amendments the state constitution violated the state constitution.
That, my friends, is tyranny.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
but the real issue is neither P2P nor the the RIAA's price-fixing and other disreputable goings-on.
The real issue, why BC and MIT said "Hey, wait a minute!" is Internet privacy. I agree with the previous poster who gave the nice example of the telephone service -- we expect (and should, given the tenets of the US) an assumed privacy in our communications. Once reasonable evidence is brought forth, conforming to the search and seizure laws, then communication can be monitored, and after that, the law can be brought down on the offender.
It seems to me that the RIAA is trying (and often succeeding) in skipping a step -- that of monitoring after evidence is brought forth (a la a search warrant). They're monitoring and then getting the names to prosecute.
Then again, I'm going off hearsay I read here.
And you're posting as an Anonymous Coward, why?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
And this is important because it's finally a large corporation without the backchannel communications and handshakes that is willing to stand up to the recording cartel.
It got me to thinking "What can I do to support Verizon's case?" (even though I happen to work for one of their biggest competitors). I asked a few lawyer friends and they told me that I could file an amicus ("friend of the court") brief directly with the court hearing the appeal but unless I was representing a lot of other people from a major organization...it would pretty much be spinning my wheels. They said the best thing to do is to write letters to the editors of every paper in my area laying out the whole situation and the potential risk to our privacy. Even though federal judges are appointed and not elected, public opinion can often sway the legal interpretation that federal judges adopt (after all, nobody likes to be unpopular and flamed in the press) and it also influences future appointments.
So, eloquent Slashdot posters with a real understanding of the case...take your next Slashdot post and | lp -d editor. I know I will.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
It looks like sheep have arisen. I for one...
You gonna finish that? "I, for one, welcome our new avine overlords"?
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
The RIAA does not have any special powers here. Anyone can submit such a statement to the US District Court clerk.
The matching of the IP address to the student name is up to the University (acting as the ISP). Before the student can be ordered to pay damages there will have to a trial. The system administrator can be ordered to testify at the trial as to how the match was made. It is up to the jury to decide if the case is proven. As this would be a civil case, the standard is "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Matthew Oppenheim is the lead lawyer for the RIAA. Jonathan Lamy is another legal lackey. Amy Weiss is head of the RIAA Dis-Information Ministry. If you want to contact the RIAA here is their phone number and address: RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERICA 1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW SUITE 300 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 US Phone number is 202-775-0101 (Apparently this number was copywrighted by an individual who now wants to sue the RIAA for using it) Here is the board of directors for the RIAA (from www.boycott-riaa.com): I wanted to make sure everyone understands who is behind the decisions the the RIAA makes. If it is going after users, or going after software companies etc. These are the people who make those decisions. Remember when you buy recordings from the RIAA members you are helping to finance their assault on the copyright laws of this country, on the people who love music, and yourself. Bill Evans Roger Ames, Warner Music Group Michele Anthony, Sony Music Entertainment Inc. Val Azzoli, The Atlantic Group Jose Behar, Univision Music Group Bob Cavallo, Buena Vista Music Group Ronnie Dashev, Maverick Recording Company Clive Davis, RCA Music Group Tracey Edmonds, Edmonds Record Group Dick Griffey, Solar Records/J.Hines Co. Zach Horowitz, Universal Music Group Don Ienner, Sony Music U.S. David Johnson, Warner Music Group Lawrence Kenswil, Universal Music Group Mel Lewinter, Universal Music Group Alain Levy, EMI Recorded Music Roy Lott, Virgin Records David Munns, EMI Recorded Music Worldwide Antonio Reid, Arista Records Inc. Sylvia Rhone, Elektra Entertainment Group Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, BMG Entertainment Tom Silverman, Tommy Boy Music Andy Slater, Capitol Records Thomas Stein, BMG Entertainment Tom Tyrrell, Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. This list is directly from the RIAA website. lawmakers who do the RIAA's bidding: Rep. Robert C. Scott Rep. Adam B.Schiff Rep. Bob Goodlatte Rep. Darrell Issa Rep. Ed Bryant Rep. Elton Gallegly Rep. Henry Hyde Rep. Howard Coble Rep. Howard L Berman Rep. James Sensenbrenner Rep. John Conyers, Jr Rep. Lamar Smith Rep. Lindsey O. Graham Rep. Melissa Hart Rep. Ric Keller Rep. Robert Wexler Rep. William L. Jenkins Sen. Dianne Feinstein Sen. Fritz Hollings Sen. Gordon Smith Sen. Joseph Biden Sen. Rick Santorurn Sensenbrenner,(head of the copyright committee) took an RIAA funded 18,000 trip in Jan of 2003 to Taiwan and Thailand to warn them about copyright. This is Illegal. Learn more about it and write your represenatives requesting an ethics investigation here(webcasters alliance): http://216.116.171.66/zzformpage.asp
(Just for the sake ot argument, although I'm not arguing with you)
It didn't say downloading with the intent to share. It said downloading.
Define "distributing"?
Thanks for the info but, far from popping my bubble, you just gave it a titanium lining. So basically, you're saying that subpoenas now carry the same power as warrants...only it's a media cartel instead of law enforcement that wields it and a clerk instead of a judge that grants it.
It sure is a good thing that the second branch of government always passes perfect laws since they represent all of us. Good point about the clerk being an official of the court...that's probably necessary but if it is, their powers need to be limited. Clever hack by the media cartels and their paid-off legislators (those pesky people that get elected and then promptly accept campaign money to blow off their constituents), I'll give them that.
While I'm with you that no one branch should ever gain too much power, I question your interpretation of the balance of powers...especially in light of today's environment. Where you seem to believe that the Judicial branch has too much power, I believe that the Legislative branch has been bought off and is no longer representative of its constituents. So while you see the Judicial branch saving us from the Legislative branch, I percieve the situation from the opposite point of view.
Tyranny can come from any direction, be it clueless judges, bought-off legislators, or power-happy executives. The goal of the constitution is to make these threats sufficiently at odds enough that the end result is palatable.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
Matthew Oppenheim is the lead lawyer for the RIAA.
Jonathan Lamy is another legal lackey.
Amy Weiss is head of the RIAA Dis-Information Ministry.
If you want to contact the RIAA here is their phone number and address:
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERICA
1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW SUITE 300
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
US
Phone number is 202-775-0101 (Apparently this number was copywrighted by an individual who now wants to sue the RIAA for using it)
Here is the board of directors for the RIAA (from www.boycott-riaa.com):
I wanted to make sure everyone understands who is behind the decisions the the RIAA makes. If it is going after users, or going after software companies etc. These are the people who make those decisions. Remember when you buy recordings from the RIAA members you are helping to finance their assault on the copyright laws of this country, on the people who love music, and yourself.
Bill Evans
Roger Ames, Warner Music Group
Michele Anthony, Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
Val Azzoli, The Atlantic Group
Jose Behar, Univision Music Group
Bob Cavallo, Buena Vista Music Group
Ronnie Dashev, Maverick Recording Company
Clive Davis, RCA Music Group
Tracey Edmonds, Edmonds Record Group
Dick Griffey, Solar Records/J.Hines Co.
Zach Horowitz, Universal Music Group
Don Ienner, Sony Music U.S.
David Johnson, Warner Music Group
Lawrence Kenswil, Universal Music Group
Mel Lewinter, Universal Music Group
Alain Levy, EMI Recorded Music
Roy Lott, Virgin Records
David Munns, EMI Recorded Music Worldwide
Antonio Reid, Arista Records Inc.
Sylvia Rhone, Elektra Entertainment Group
Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, BMG Entertainment
Tom Silverman, Tommy Boy Music
Andy Slater, Capitol Records
Thomas Stein, BMG Entertainment
Tom Tyrrell, Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.
This list is directly from the RIAA website.
lawmakers who do the RIAA's bidding:
Rep. Robert C. Scott
Rep. Adam B.Schiff
Rep. Bob Goodlatte
Rep. Darrell Issa
Rep. Ed Bryant
Rep. Elton Gallegly
Rep. Henry Hyde
Rep. Howard Coble
Rep. Howard L Berman
Rep. James Sensenbrenner
Rep. John Conyers, Jr
Rep. Lamar Smith
Rep. Lindsey O. Graham
Rep. Melissa Hart
Rep. Ric Keller
Rep. Robert Wexler
Rep. William L. Jenkins
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Sen. Fritz Hollings
Sen. Gordon Smith
Sen. Joseph Biden
Sen. Rick Santorurn
Sensenbrenner,(head of the copyright committee) took an RIAA funded 18,000 trip in Jan of 2003 to Taiwan and Thailand to warn them about copyright. This is Illegal. Learn more about it and write your represenatives requesting an ethics investigation here(webcasters alliance):
http://216.116.171.66/zzformpage.asp
The RIAA is DIRTY! Use the system to beat them at their own game. We out number them about 1,000,000 to 1. Never forget that, write congress today.
(Sorry for the double post, keep forgetting to change the formating.
Simply put, in this case, the law is wrong and needs to be changed. It is wrong for the RIAA to be able to sue someone $750 all the way to $150,000 for "supposedly" sharing a song. And theres the fact that in most cases they seem to want to go after the maximum amount. All the RIAA is doing is searching Kazaa and other services to see what everyone has available for sharing. They aren't checking to see if a file has been shared, or how many times its been shared. Remember, even when the college kids earlier in the year were sued, the RIAA gave a count of the number of files they were supposedly sharing, they never gave an account as to how many times each song was downloaded, etc. The amounts they are able to sue for are "perceieved amounts" in terms of financial damages, and have no basis in reality.
For example, lets say Billy Jo Bob, a newly signed country singer, makes an album. Billy joe sucks, and very, very few people like him. His album grosses, not nets, but grosses, $50,000. Now, lets say that one of the few people who bought it rips it, shares it, and is then sued by the RIAA. For each TRACK, not entire compilation, they can legally sue for $150,000. Now, lets say the album had 10 tracks on it, and the user puts them all up for grabs. That user can be legally sued for "costing" the record company $1,500,000, even if theres no proof that a single song was downloaded from him. All of an album that grossed barely a percentage of that amount.
To put it in terms that you might be abe to understand, this is the legal equivalent of saying that if you own a gun, and someone on your street is murdered using a gun, you're guilty. The police do not need to gather evidence beyond your owning the gun, for example, ballitics or checking alibis for veracity. Then, the family of the murder victim can sue you for wages lost, and the total they can legally sue you for is the same as if the guy became CEO of a Fortune 500 company and worked til he was 80.
Instead of adopting the holier than thou attitude, consider that this is a democracy. We are, at least in theory, in charge of this country, not the lawmakers. The rights of protest and civil disobedience are etched throughout the history of our legal system. And, from what I understand, the stance that MIT and BC are taking is that they're being polite right now, giving the RIAA a gracious way out, but if the RIAA still pursues the information, they will tell them to shove it.
As for file sharing itself, I'm not saying its right and legal. I do it myself, and I acknowledge I'm breaking the law. And I could care less. I have my reasons, none of which I will speak of here, but I do acknowledge it is not legal by any means. However, it is not the place of the RIAA to be creating so much FUD and irresponsible litigation. I imagine if the laws were changed to something somewhat sane, the universities would have no major issues with giving the RIAA the information. As of now however, I hope that they're seeing an abuse of the system, and an opportunity to protect their students from a ravenous corporate beast, while they deal with the issue themselves.
However, jusding by your apprent support for the DMCA:
Clearly central government don't have the resources to combat this problem effectively, which is why they pushed through the DMCA in the first place.
I expect you might need help in understanding all these big words.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
Of course "that road" is still being traveled by Verizon, but I would like to propose that this may be, in fact, an entirely different road.
Almost every college I have been to behaves a bit like a small city - sometimes it's own state - with it's own set of rules, regulations, and policies.
Most also have their own policing organizations and post office. What is the point?
The point is that this may be slightly a matter of juristiction, and I'm certain that at least the college that invented Kerebos sees it that way. They police themselves - watching their own networks, and work very hard to ensure that their citizens are protected, and that what is private remains so.
They also discipline them when they do something they shouldn't.
This may not be legal reasoning for MIT and Boston, but it sure is ethical grounds. It is not in either MIT or Boston's best interest to have massive file-swapping, and as tech-savvy colleges, they certainly limit it.
Does anyone know of any cases where students rights where protected from outside litigation because schools were taking care of the problems?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I'm thinking about our campus. For the student VLAN, we have a DHCP server. Right now, anyone can come on campus, plug into a port, get an IP and launch Kazza.
There really is no way of tracing someone down unless we find the machine online and go see who is plugged in that port.
All that is assuming that someone did not forge the MAC address to be someone elses.
So, a school could turn over student info, and that student would have to expend tons of $$$ to prove it wasn't them, or just cave and pay off the RIAA extortion. (Sounds like SCO)
What's next, laws requiring a certain amount of logging everywhere? And who is gonna pay for this? Are the gonna outlaw dumb hubs?
And let's not forget the fact that there's no way to prove that _I_ downloaded anything, especially if my computer is in a dorm room with others, or even roaming on a wireless LAN. So you've got an IP address, a filename, and a time. So what. That's not jack squat on most networks.
If someone else commits a crime with my car, does that make me the criminal? Maybe so, if I knew about it. But then again, maybe not. My point is that there's just to much slack given to the RIAA at this point.
I can say for a fact that UMass does that; when you connect a NIC with an unrecognized MAC to the network, it assigns you a non-routable IP and all DNS queries from that block are answered with the IP of the server used to register the MAC address. In order to register, you need to know two things: a student ID number (which is no longer their SS#) and the user's password. That process would probably be sufficient to demonstrate identity in court (especially in a civil case, where the standard's not "beyond reasonable doubt" but "preponderance of probabilities").
To be honest, I think universities and similar institutions should keep these records, if only because of the number of times I get portscanned or a flood of Code Red/Nimda scans from University IPs...
The second branch of the government (you know that pesky branch that is elected by the people), has instructed the courts via legislation, that evidence of illegal downloading is, ipso facto, sufficient evidence and probable cause. Therefore, there is no need for judicial review, and the clerk (who is an official of the court) can simply sign the supboena.)
The question here is "who decides that the evidence is legitimate?" Currently, it's a group with an interest in the case. Judicial oversight is needed to prevent errors and abuse.
Example: Let's say I'm Vice President of Asskissing at the RIAA. My neighbor buys a nice shiny new car, which pisses me off because I should have a better car. So I arrange for my underling to issue a subpeona to the university my neighbor's kid goes to. The kid's dad gets notified by the University and hilarity ensues.
Sound far-fetched? Maybe it is. But it's not entirely unheard of for folks given power to abuse it.
Now, say I want to improve efficiency in the Legal Department. Is it a big stretch to send out form-letter subpeonas to anyone sharing a file that could be infringing before evaluating whether the file is actually in violation? Of course not. I'd stamp out subpeonas by the thousands then decide who to sue.
So, yes, I think it should go through a judge. The ability to obtain personal information about any user based on his or her IP address is too easily abused without oversight.
I guess now is the time to say I told you so with respect to those banner ads telling everyone that their IPs are being broadcasted over the Internet. Next thing you know people will be complaining that they missed their email when they are told plain and clear they have 1 new message waiting for them.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
We might imagine "counsel" for MIT comes from one of the less technically adept Universities. After a couple of years at MIT, they might even get it. In the mean time, you don't have to be much of a tech guru to understand the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act requirements to notify students before the release of personal information such as names and addresses. Nor do you have to be much a lawyer to understand jusritictional issues. Hell, they could get someone from LSU to do that much. What's up with these RIAA clowns? OK, extortionists and music pimps are not well known for their legal prowess either.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You don't have to worry about DMCA-style laws up here. Check out here for why. Basically, we have bill C-6 (The Privacy Act) and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to protect us. To boil it down, when the last stages of these laws come in to effect in jan2004, any non-journalistic/artistic business has to have a court order signed by a judge (not just a stamp from a clerk) to release any information about an identifiable person. So if an (RI|MP)AA-type organization sends just a subpoena to your ISP, your ISP is then supposed to tell them to go screw themselves. Gotta love it!
A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
FINALLY, a large, respected organisation telling the RIAA to go fuck themselves until they bleed.
As far as I'm concerned, the RIAA has driven more people to illegal file sharing than any other force or organisation, and they've done it deliberately just so they can get indignant and prosecute those same people.
Fucking RIAA. At least have the decency to treat the musicians better than dirt.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
the recording industry organization provides a KaZaA screen name, an Internet Protocol, or IP, address, and a list of songs it says were shared from the location.
A LIST of files. No actual files, just a list. The actual file called "Metallica - Master of Puppets" could conatin my voice saying "Lars, this was your last album worth buying" repeating over and over again to fill the 5.53 time slot. Everyone knows these are out there and I swear I read in the past about the RIAA doing this themselves to water down the results. How can a list of file names possibly stand up in court? I am not sticking up for copyright violators but the RIAA was no real evidence here.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
*footsteps*
*knock knock*
How does the RIAA find out who downloaded these files anyway?
Or to take this one step to far. :-)
What's the difference between:
I own a CD.
I put the CD in my CD player.
Someone else accesses that CD via Cat5 cable.
and
I own a CD.
I put the CD in my CD player.
Someone else accesses that CD via 1/8" headphone cable.
They're both sharing. Will the RIAA come hunt me down because everyone I work with can listen to my CDs using headphones? Will they also hunt down the person using the headphones?
No, the net is not private and having that expectation is very foolish. however, all that is being stated by freeuser is that normal due process be applied to the accused as would be done for other crimes. I don't see how stealing music warrants such harsh treatment. Come on, its just MUSIC. Its not like people are being accused of 20 counts of 1st degree murder.
As far as I'm concerned, I do not have to open my door for ANY lawyer, whether hired by my neighbor, or by the RIAA, no matter how much hot air they blow out of their asses. Its all posturing until I have my day in court.
I have a fairly newbish question. Why dooesn't MIT and such just, NOT log ips, or at least not log them in a way that connects them to some user. Then it will be impossible for them to comply with any such request.
How about the official mit news release here.
It better explains what they are really doing.
Since the nature of "sharing" on Kazaa is one of offering your files to anyone who may care to download them, including the RIAA and their agents, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy." This is not breaking and entering to find out your identity. This is logging the IP address of a computer, at the behest of its owner, offering up files to anyone and everyone.
This is the digital equivalent of them marking down the license plate number of someone with a bumper sticker that says, "THUG FOR HIRE." Or something like that.
I'm no longer a student there but I believe that in order to use the wireless on the campus you need some sort of account. From what I hear, this involves identifying yourself as a student (with some login/pw info) as well as matching MAC address. So that's pretty much the easiest way you could identify students on that campus.
Back in the day, land lines were accessed by user/pw too which would identify the student with an IP.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Many unsigned musicians provide free downloads of their music on their websites as a way to attract more fans, for example my friends the Divine Maggees. Many such musicians, while relatively unknown, are as good as any major label band and certainly an improvement over the pablum they serve up on ClearChannel.
You can find many more examples in my new article:
-
Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads
The article also explores some of the historical and legal issues behind copyright, and suggests steps the file traders can take to make file sharing legal.If you're a musician who offers downloads of your music, I can link to your band's website from the article. Please follow the instructions given here.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
I've got a better idea. How about lowering the price of cd's from 17-18 dollars to 11-12 dollars.
I think one step further would solve it.
If I could walk into a record store and pay $12 for any 18 songs of my choosing, I'd buy CDs like they were going out of style.
The RIAA would never go for it because the dime-a-dozen-created-in-a-marketing-department boy/girl bands would never sell complete albums, nor would people be forced to buy complete albums just for one decent song.
To which I says, if it's shit and no one wants it, it's still shit. put out better material and I'll spring for complete CDs once in a while.
What the RIAA will never get, even after it's last dying breath is that Kazaa and the like provide people with what the RIAA can't: customization of their listening preferences and experience. Offer that same thing, and you're golden.
Logging an IP address and forcing the ISP give out private information about you are two very different things.
So when they find the copyright violater/sharer, confirm it (how else are they going to get a subpeona unless it's verifiable?), and follow these legal channels, why are they in the wrong?
That's the problem...the RIAA got Congress to pass a law that says they can write their own subpeonas without first proving to a judge that they had enough evidence to do so.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
OK, this is probably off-topic, but I have to point out that lots of people seem to be in favor of handing over what we think of as governmental duties to private industry. The current administration is paying off big corporate contributors with lots of juicy contracts for what were once thought of as government jobs. Take that most governmental of duties, collecting taxes. The current administration wants to give away fully one quarter of our (that's you and me, the taxpayers) delinquent accounts receivable to private contractors to collect the money. The simple idea of just hiring more government employees whose job is to collect taxes (and who do so umpteen times more efficiently than private industry) just doesn't occur to the powers-that-be. To top that off, all your computerized records at the IRS will soon be controlled by private company employees because the Office of Management and Budget has recently (illegally) revised the rules (a document named Circular A-76) for contracting out work so as to make virtually no government job safe from easy privatization. For references, just google on NTEU (one of the unions fighting this crap) and A-76.
Yes, law enforcement is being handed over to big corporations in lots of ways these days. Any suggestions for how to stem the rising tide of government-by-corporation?
I feel like I'm in Wonderland, sometimes. The RIAA does not control your food or water supply. They aren't your landlord. Their sole power is to offer a certain subset of music for sale, and to decide on the terms under which it will be sold. If they decided not to sell any of their music to anyone at any price, what would be the net effect? A lot of pissed off artists and consumers, sure, but everyone would live right through it.
Hate the RIAA? Don't like their business model and practices? Then don't do business with them! If you're a music consumer, go to clubs, buy microlabel and band-pressing CDs, swap non-RIAA mp3s, and enjoy. If you're a music producer, release your tunes through some other channel.
Why is this so hard for people to deal with?
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
It's not *stealing*. It's copyright infringement, a horse of a very different color.
Stealing means that the original owner no longer has it, which is obviously untrue in the current incarnation of file sharing networks.
You download a song from me, and I *still* have my copy. I haven't lost a thing. There's been no damage done to my system. Oh, sure, a miniscule amount of bandwidth has been "consumed" (if such a thing is possible), but that's about it.
However, because I shared the song, and you downloaded it, we're *both* guilty of copyright infringement.
The RIAA/MPAA have done a wonderful job of equating "File Sharing" with "Stealing". A classic case of spin doctoring, if you will. After all, isn't photocopying a page from a book at the library copyright infringement? Everyone does it, and it's condoned by most people, including the library. It sure doesn't sound as bad as stealing.
So do everyone a favor, and call it what it is, not what the *AA would like it to be.
-- Karma is for people who think they matter.
All lawsuits require some form of valid evidence. A "list" does not quantify evidence. Get your attorney to demand that the RIAA download and play every alleged file you have on their list.
Every.
Single.
Song.
They'll either dismiss the case, or the jury will have comitted suicide by the 8th hour of your "Best of Menudo", "Backstreet Boys Greatest Hits", and "Nsyn Nlimited" collection.
End of case.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
OK... My turn. I call bullshit on this.
"Public internet" is a meaningless term here, just confusing the issue - you may as well talk about "public phones." The fact that people have to take precautions to secure their machines in no way relates to their _right_ to privacy - any more than the fact you have to lock your doors to keep out crooks reflects on your 4th Amendment Rights (that's "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." in case you're curious).
Attempting to compare accidentally publishing content on a webpage with someone reverse-engineering a communications system to eavesdrop on its participants AND allowing out-of-band personal information about them be released at someone's whim without the oversight of a judge... It doesn't fit, does it.
That's the real point of all of this. Not that you should be totally secure in your right to privacy against all other concerns, but that a court and a judge have to sign off on breaching that trust. DMCA, incredibly, gives the RIAA (just some private corporate entity) the power of a judge-and-court to arbitrarily invade your private life if (by their own determination) they suspect you've committed a (really underwhelming) crime - and that, I think, is what we're concerned about.
No matter _what_ the suspect is doing, searches at the whim of a corporate entity without the oversight of a judge... I'm sorry, there's no mincing words. it is black-letter unconstitutional, and categorically unamerican.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Anyone who downloaded it, share, and ONLY share, Charlie Manson's "Whitey Album".
Then when the RIAA tries to nail you for it, send out a press release stating that the RIAA is contributing profits to a convicted mass murderer.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
So downloading songs wasn't illegal a year ago, so...most songs in my library can't be used in any arguement by the RIAA. Correct?
No. It means you can't be sued for sharing files a year ago. You could, however, be sued NOW.
No one seems to get this.
Your IP address isn't what's at issue here, although the RIAA's eavesdropping on a peer to peer network does have components of eavesdropping on email or other communication systems in my opinion (look to intent; the RIAA doesn't play by the rules of the system, and for a definite purpose).
The issue is whether or not we still have the sacred, black-letter constitutional requirement for a judge to approve a search warrant... or if we just gave the power of a judge to some random private entity, so that it can invade privacy all over the countryside, without any oversight, at the least provocation... at best being "corrected" later, at great expense and long after the horses are out of the barn door.
It's the whim of the RIAA now, not the judgement of a court... and that's what doesn't fly in this country. Make light of it at your peril - many, many people bled into the earth to secure this right for you. No private citizen, picking suspects at their sole discretion, should decide whose person and privacy should be violated. We have checks and balances for a very good reason.
--
Bill of Rights cramping your style? Try China!
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Instead, buy from independent non-RIAA musicians and labels. You'll have to look around on the Web to find those, but you should be able to find one to match your tastes no matter what they are. If record sales go up, but the RIAA labels go even deeper into red-ink, it'll be obvious that piracy is not the problem, no more excuses to make bad laws. It really won't take a lot of this to blow the labels right out of the water.
They're losing money anyway. They blame piracy. If they lose money a hell of a lot faster, what good is a "name brand" when customers see the name and automatically buy elsewhere? The label owners will see a bunch of "tainted brands" losing them money. The mulitnationals will unload fast to investors who will only want the catalogs and artist catalogues. Who will want to buy a CEO who managed to turn a $5 billion company into a $500M company?
CDBaby has a quite a few. Some with downloadable music.
Or check my sig to hear another one. We've got downloadable MP3s, too.
If you aren't sure whether an artist is RIAA or not, check RIAA Radar search to see if the artist is listed.
Every dollar spent on non-RIAA label music is another nail in the coffin of the RIAA and its record company members.
Tech Public Policy stuff
All of the examples you give describe search warrant / court order situations. But the DMCA cut the judge out of the loop. Anyone can get the equivalant of a court ordered search warrant at will. *I* could file the appropriate paperwork and force Slashdot to turn over *YOUR* IP address, then I can go to your ISP and force them to turn over your name. It should NOT be possible for me to get your name and addresswithout firstmaking a case before a judge.
The only penalty I could find for abusing the system is perjury for claiming to be (or represent) the copyright holder. I'm not sure if there are any penalties for making bogus claims that you infringed my copyright, but even if there are the standard I have to meet to defend myself is absurdly low.
The US congress essentially turned over actual judicial powers to anyone and everyone who claims someone is infringing their copyright.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Ownership of culture. That's what it boils down to. American culture is owned by corps. It's taken to the extreme. Hell you can't even sing "Happy Birthday" to someone at work unless you pay the RIAA a royalty.
A people's culture is a lot like food and water. And there's a huge cartel that owns most of American culture. And they keep changing the laws, so they will keep owning it forever.
This is wrong.
This is all completely legal, and plausibly prohibits the campus officials from being able to identify anyone should they be approached
One reasonably expects one's communications to be private, whether it is by mail, telephone, or internet. Even large private meetings (private business teleconferences, etc.) have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
While you are correct when it comes to uses as e-mail, buisness transactions or internet telephones, I would say that posting in a public form or broadcasting your IP to a bunch of strangers for the purposes of swapping files kinda negates your expectation of privacy in this regard. The examples you described all have one thing in common, and that is they're point-to-point communications. Point-to-mass, as P2P is, is an entirely different animal.
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
yes, maybe the RIAA has rights to those logs..
maybe they do need them to investigate people that are infringing upon their copyrights.
But it should be a judge to decide whether or not the RIAA has the right to do so, the RIAA should not have the right to decide for itsself
What? Me? Worry?
"I wonder how long the schools will be able to keep the RIAA's pack of lawyers at bay..."
The more pertinent question is, how much of the tuition money that gets paid to any given college ends up in lawyers' pockets? How much are MIT and Boston College going to spend fighting this legal battle?
Or, are they simply demanding that the subpoenas be proper and lawful? We all know the RIAA is not a government agency and has no legal authority over anybody.
A legal expectation is not the same thing as a reasonable expectation.
If I leave my front door unlocked and leave on a two-week vacation, I am legally entitled to the presumption that nobody has the right to enter.
My insurance company might be able to argue that I was negligent and that they aren't liable. But the thieves will not be allowed to argue that I had no reasonable expectation that my property would not be stolen.
A valid distinction can still be made between Internet communications that are intended to be private communications and those that are offered to the public at large. There is nothing improper about searching web sites for download links. Searching private communications on the other hand is improper and illegal, no matter how easy it is to do.
Ah, yes, name-calling, exaggeration and patronising prose: the tools of defensive hypocrites everywhere. Why do you assume that because I disagree with you, I am stupid or ill-informed? I am neither.
On the contrary. If you had bothered to read any of my past posts before making assumptions about me, you'd have found that I wrote on the importance of constantly questioning laws just the other day. I also suggested that the way to see things changed for the better is to fix the broken laws, not to break the current ones.
Oh, please. The hypocrisy around this whole debate is staggering, and your "supposedly" above does nothing to help your case. One minute, going after P2P is an abuse, and they should go after the perps. When they do that, everyone's up in arms about invasions of this or that. Now the perps aren't really perps, they just happened to leave illegal downloadable copies of current tracks lying around their systems? Who are you trying to kid?
And yes, the astronomical amounts they can theoretically sue for are "perceived" amounts disconnected with reality. And how often have the courts awarded them those amounts?
If you insist on using emotional and disconnected analogies, then at least be sensible. It is more akin to saying that if someone points a gun at me and I genuinely believe they're about to shoot me, I can shoot them first and it's reasonable self defence.
I'm adopting a holier than thou attitude? Now that is funny.
And no, you don't live in a democracy such as you describe. Think about it, and if necessary, check what the word "democracy" actually means.
That's an interesting understanding, which appears to differ from the understanding of almost everyone else here. What do you know that we all don't?
Perhaps at some point you should consider that copyright laws used to be sane. Then people like you abused the system on a massive scale, and the system responded. You don't like the response? Maybe you should have thought of that before you were abusive, instead of naively believing that you could get away with it forever.
And no, I don't like the DMCA, nor did I say or even imply that I did. I simply look at it from an impartial outsider's point of view, and recognise why it was proposed and allowed to pass successfully into law.
I've noticed that people from the US usually cry "Unconstitutional!" under two circumstances. One is that a law has been passed that is a genuine violation of their rights or a real threat to their liberty. Another is that a law has been passed that prevents them personally from doing something out of line, a
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
...May 2002 to see if my company would continue to invest in the Media Lab as we had for the past 5 years. During the main Q&A session, I asked in front of about 500 attendees if the Media Lab was worried that legislation such as the DMCA would effect their ability to innovate and what they were doing to protect themselves. When I stood up and asked the question, a good portion of the audience let out a laugh. They thought it was a funny/silly question. I was probably only one of the only research-types there. Just goes to show how out of sync with reality corporate money spenders are...
All your base are belong to us!
The difference is the difference between government and private entities. It's wrong to turn over inherently governmental functions to private entities. Would you feel comfortable, for example, entrusting all the murder investigations in your area to a private corporation? Or would you feel better if those investigations were carried out by government employees who are at least nominally motivated by the pursuit of justice instead of a profit motive?
The same thing is true of tax collections. The IRS, despite all the negative (and mostly untrue) media coverage that preceded the 1998 Restructuring Act, is motivated not just to collect tax but to do so in ways that do not make a mockery of serving the common good, a concept that private entities do not grasp in any way. Look at it this way: Law enforcement should be done by the government, not private entities. Slashdotters have been pretty unanimous about that and, I think, rightly so. Well, collecting taxes is law enforcement.
Who was it who said that the power to tax was the power to destroy? Do you really feel comfortable with handing over the enforcement component of that power to any private entity?
Yep.
For most of it, I've been nonexistent. But for a substantial portion of the time I've been around, I was a tax collector.
Yep, you're absolutely right. That's why the last time Congress foolishly forced the IRS to turn over a portion of our delinquent accounts receivable to private companies for collection, those companies did such a stellar, highly motivated job of collecting money. (That's sarcasm, in case you didn't realize.) All that "piece of the action" motivation did was cause those private collectors to go ape shit. There were documented cases of telephone calls being made to debtors at 4:19 AM. The number of documented violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act were nearly uncountable. And when all was said and done, the private contractors used more man-hours at a higher cost to collect the money than the control group of government employees. The final figures indicated that IRS Revenue Officers not only collect money more efficiently than the private sector (almost THIRTY times more efficiently) but they do so without abusing debtors at all hours of the day and night and without running roughshod over their right to be treated like human beings.
Knee-jerk reactions of "The government is incompetent at everything!" are not something I can overcome with logic, so ignore this post if you wish. But the fact remains that the IRS collects debts far more efficiently and humanely than any private enterprise.
Even if that weren't true, I'd argue that it's wrong to give law enforcement power to private entities because of the abuse that inevitably happens. But you take your pick of which argument you like, the practical or the moral. I'm ready to defend both approaches.
I'll bet you can count on one finger the number of organizations that have both your SS# and a complete, itemized breakdown of everything you earned as well as near-complete insight into how you live your life and plan your finances since you entered the work force, all in one place. That one place is the IRS. Even your mortgage lender on
I can't decide which would be worse to try to challenge on legal issues:
This is the letter to my senator... feel free to proof and send a copy to your own.
Senator_______,
I am appalled at the way the US Federal Court system is being hijacked by corporations. The Recording Industry Association of American and others are using the US Civil Courts as a way to punish both the wrong doers and the innocent. In all cases brought by the RIAA, the deck will be stacked in favor of the RIAA simply because they have more money to throw at the problem than an individual and better lawyers than anyone can afford. I do not support copyright infringement, but I do not support big corporations bullying around citizens because they can, and I definitely do not support proposed legislation that would make distribution of electronic copyrighted material an automatic felony, because, it would hurt many more people than the few that benefited, and it does not require that there be material proof (a list of IPs and such) that the file was downloaded. The sad fact is that the current legislation supports the copyright holders far more than the rights of the people. Right now both the RIAA and DirecTV are suing people for alleged infringements without any Due Process or conclusive proof and without a judge watching over their actions (as of right now it only takes a clerk's stamp to subpoena an individual). They have become their own police force, without all the restrictions that the police have, and without the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty". Now it's becoming like "You might already be a Millionaire" but in reverse "You might already be sued for Intellectual Property/Copyright Infringement". More legislation does not help; it only gives more rights to the corporations, and less to the US citizen. In the end it looks and smells like extortion, especially by DirecTV (pay us $3,500 now and settle out of court, go to court and pay us $10,000 to settle, or take your chances with a judge) just for buying a smartcard reader! What is the reason why corporations can do this? It's a simple question with a simple answer: Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law with good intentions, but with major flaws. According to the EFF (EFF.org/share) there are more that 60 million Americans that use file sharing networks. The RIAA (and friends) is trying to make everyone who has copyrighted material a felon (proposed legislation "AACOPS"), and you can bet everyone has copyrighted material on their computer. They could not shut them down because they do have legal uses, so they are instead going after the users instead. Also, why hasn't the RIAA been under investigation as a trust? It is an entity that its members control at least 80% of the current US music market. Not to mention those same corporations have recently been ruled against in a price fixing class-action lawsuit, yet they have not reduced the price of CD's. Not only that they try to bully out smaller independent means of distribution (one reason why the hate file sharing).
Nope. Law enforcement is law enforcement and law enforcement should be done by the government. Unless, of course, you think there are degrees of importance in the law and some laws are so minor in importance that they should be handed over to private entities for enforcement. Is that what you're saying?
Yep and yep.
Yes, I realize the first cite is a biased bit of testimony by a Union wonk. However, obtain and read the cited references contained therein before you pass judgement.
The second link is even more interesting. Authored by a function that can only justify its existence by finding things wrong with the IRS, it goes to great lengths to say, in effect, "Well, contracting for private agencies to do tax collections was a giant cluster-fuck when it was tried before, but things have changed and you ought to try it again." For those of us on the inside, reports like this one are an endless source of amusement. But the central facts remain: private contractors have been tried, they performed poorly, and a comparison to the standards of performance upheld by IRS employees shows that Revenue Officers are multiple times more efficient at collecting taxes than private entities. And even if some pols want to try it again, I doubt anything will change those facts.
As an aside, if you actually read the report, you can work out the efficiency/effectiveness ratios for yourself. The 30x figure comes from an admittedly liberal interpretation of the internal report cited on page 5. I can't locate it on the web, but even accepting the TIGTA-biased summary of that report contained in my cite, the IRS is at least 5 times as efficient as the private sector. I suggest you ask your local IRS office for a copy of the full internal report, IRS Private Sector Debt Collection Pilot Program dated October 1997, if you want the full numbers.
Well, first there's the basic (totally flawed) bias held by a number of folks that hiring government employees is never the answer to anything. Government should be smaller, not larger, no matter the circumstances. That's just wrong-headed, but it's also an essentially religious belief (i.e. a belief based on faith, not facts) and I won't attempt to rectify your thinking there.
However, a bit of tedious explanation of how government budgeting works is, apparently, in order. I now realize that you are not familiar enough with the process to understand what's going on. My apologies; I should have realized sooner. This stuff can be a bit arcane.
So what am I talking about? Here tis: Hiring more Revenue Officers (and Revenue Agents and Tax Compliance Specialists, etc.) requires the government to spend money. Someone has to put a dollar entry on a budget and get Congress to approve it. That's hard.
Letting a contract for a private entity to collect taxes is, by contrast, nearly without cost. A few people have to be paid to read through the bids, make a decision, and oversee the process, but the cost is nominal. Nothing ever comes out of pocket because the contractors are only paid a percentage of what they collect.
Are you getting the idea? Even though contractors are FAR less efficient than Revenue Officers, they don't cost any out-of-pocket money. It's WAY easier for politicians to support programs that don't cost any money than it is to support programs that cost money, even if the programs that cost money might be far, far more profitable 5 years down the road. Hell, that's a couple of elections away! Who cares about that?! Basically, we're dealing with the same sort of short-term thinking and "next-quarter" mentality that so thoroughly sucks in the private sector.