Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous User Challenges RIAA Subpoena
Arclightfire writes "First there was the setback of a New England judge throwing out an attempt to uncover the names of students at MIT accused of piracy and now CNet is reporting that a 'Jane Doe' is arguing that the subpoena violates her right to due process." There's also a Reuters story.
"The most important issue is that if you are innocent, if the RIAA has screwed up, it is critical that individuals have the ability to challenge the subpoenas before their identifies are compromised," said Fred von Lohmann, an EFF attorney.
.02
Definitly. Problem here is this: She also "participated" in the Kazaa file-swapping community but tried to prevent other people from accessing files on her computer, the documents state. So, while she was using it as a media player (*cough*) she was also "participating" (whatever that means). Just because she "tried to block it" doesn't excuse her. This isn't going to help the public much.
Just my worthless
"The courts have already ruled that you're not anonymous when you're publicly distributing music online," said Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president at the RIAA. "Her lawyers are trying to obtain a free pass to download or upload music online illegally. Their arguments have already been addressed by federal court and been rejected."
Seems to me like this is an entirely different set of issues. As far as I know, the courts never addressed this on an individual, MY-rights-are-violated level. Surely her privacy rights are a lot stonger when asserted on her own behalf than when an ISP says they shouldn't have to disclose identities because that might be bad for whoever that might be that isn't represented in this hearing.
So, while she was using it as a media player (*cough*) she was also "participating" (whatever that means)
In her defense, I have gone to uninstall Kazaa on people's machines, and there are some that really do believe that its the only way to listen to their MP3's. I often have to explain to them that there are many other players out there that work better! The vast majority of casual users out there really just don't know any better, and that fact may have a major impact on these subpoenas. How do you prove that someone is computer literate enough to know they were doing something wrong?
Sound waves should be free!
That doesn't make sense because subpoena is part of the due process of law. So have can a subpoena *violate* due process of law? It is the other way around. If there was no subpoena, that would violate the right to due process of law.
-Brent
Kids keep pitching tents in their pants hoping that some case like this will all of a sudden make downloading mp3z and 0-day warezezz perfectly legal. Of course that will never happen.
This is challenging the subpoena process, which a superior court has already upheld. So, most likely, nothing will come of it.
I'd like to see the case where someone is subpoena'd by the RIAA, and proves in court that they'd never offered so much as one copyrighted work for download. Like it was all fan fiction and independent music or whatever. Headlines blazing "music industry sues guy for doing nothing", RIAA lawyers with egg on their face.
I don't have a problem with them targetting people who are legitimately harming their business. But I have a problem with automated spiders flagging people to be sued or harassed. Automatic threat letters being sent to some person with the unfortunate name of Britney Spears, stuff like that.
They don't do a lot of fact checking before they launch these suits, and do absolutely none at all to send a C&D order. That's wrong and should be punished.
Anyways.
I love iPods mod me up.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Since the goverment has no control over our country anymore, why should we be obliged to pay taxes and adhere to its laws?
Our legal system is set up so that it is very difficult for the police (a government employee) to get a warrant for a search, but the RIAA (a private company) can do it at will?
If there is some crime here, then I belive that the govenment should prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
Do banks supoena bank robbers?
Keep in mind that I have never used Kazaa or similar service, and do not belive in the whole "sharing" thing. But I refuse to have corporations coming into my private life for something the feel is suspicious. Can I get a supoena to look at RIAA's records for price fixing and their business practice because I don't like it?
This is not a slope that I want to see our govenment go down. If so, then they have relinquished all power over its people, and that will lead to anarchy and/or revolution.
First, easy enough, don't buy their CDs. If you think the music is too expensive, don't buy it. Second, don't upload, download or share and music associated with the RIAA. If you possess music files that were not purchased, unless the songs are free, it's stealing. Either buy the song or delete it. If nobody has RIAA music on their computers, RIAA can't use P2P stealing as an excuse. Third, don't even watch music videos or listen to the radio when RIAA songs are playing. Since advertising revenue comes from here, doing this will help them. When people start legally battling RIAA by ignoring them, then they will eventually die. Bottom line, music is arguable a luxury, not a necessity. There are many alternatives to RIAA music. Choose one of those alternatives.
Green Monkey san
And by pleading the 5th, she is indicating that she might had done something illegal... a sure bet to get investigated further.
People, stop stealing, the government hates competition.
I can't wait. I have several dozen (Still Going) Mp3's shared on Kazaa.
They all have different names like:
beetles - penny lane.mp3 2.8Mb
shakira.mp3
All of which are my peronal ramblings about the songs or artists. None of which contains copywrited material.
F*ck the RIAA.
I get letters from them all the time at work.
User with IP x.x.x.x is sharing via the Kazaa network.
Sharing one or more of the follwoing:
(They list like 5 songs)
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah
Bastards are fishing for Tuna in a swimming pool.
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
I have rights! The Constitution protects me! Blah blah blah blah blah. These cases are civil lawsuits and will be decided by civil courts. The Constitution doesn't even enter into it. A judge would laugh you out of court if you tried to argue that the Fourth Amendment prevents the RIAA from serving you with a subpoena. This isn't the Supreme Court kids. And the RIAA isn't the Federal Government. Bringing up the Bill of Rights into a civil lawsuit makes about as much sense as killing flies with a sledgehammer.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Ah, but here's a question... Should a corporation be able to request a subpoena? Or should only law enforcement be able to request subpoenas? Yes, the subpoenas are being granted by a court of law, but the issue here is that the RIAA is trying to act as a law enforcement agency itself. Or seems to.
Is it right that a corporation can say, "We suspect the person connected to this IP# at this time of trading files illegally. Give us the name so we can prosecute." or would it be better to say, "We suspect the person connected to this IP# at this time of trading files illegally. Please investigate this as we believe this person has caused us harm."
See the difference? The RIAA is trying to act in place of the police or a licensed private investigator. This is kind of like me going down to the court and saying, "I think someone who lives at this address took my rake. I want you to tell that address's owner to give me all the tenant's personal information."
There's a lack of law-enforcement involvement here, and I think that's what's getting people upset. IF I traded files illegally and some company came along and said, "Hah! We found out who you are and you're in big trouble!" I'd be upset. If some police officer (or a legal document from a public offical, really) came along and said, "There was a complaint that you were trading files illegally. We obtained a warrant..." Now, that's a bit different.
I really believe that the issue here is that a private entity seems to be in a position where they are receiving public powers to some extent. And that's why people are upset.
... "I read part of it all the way through." -- Movie Mogul Sam Goldwyn (and some slashdot readers)
In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty.
But Oppenheim countered that "their arguments have already been addressed by a federal judge -- and they have been rejected. Courts have already ruled that you are not anonymous when you publicly distribute music online."
The above statement presumes that you are already guilty. At the very minimum there should be a hearing to validate that the a supeona is warrented (pun intended).
All your base are belong to us!
Your assessment is wrong. See in the text below of the DMCA (section h1).
Therefore, the copyright holder still needs approval of a clerk of a FEDERAL judge in order to issue the subpoena.
BTW, this text comes from EFF.org itself.