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
"Anonymous User Challenges RIAA Subpoena" ...And he still cant post at score above 0 on slashdot. I didnt give much for this anonymous coward person until now. He should be a hero!
True ravers don't need drugs
I'm just curious as to how much money the RIAA is spending on all these court battles (which they will be foreced into)! Maybe they should be spending that money on finding new Artists or reducing the cost of exsiting material? Perhaps even setting up their own "online" song distribution system (as theres obviously a market for it [iTunes etc])
I spent ages trying to think of sig, but never did
That's right, leechers should go to prison!
codegolf.com - smaller *is* better.
She mainly uses kazza to listen to music ripped from her CD collection and tries to prevent people from accessing her collection? that sounds a little fishy but it is irrelevent. The point is the unconstitutional methods used by the RIAA
The Television Wiki
"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.
For its part, the RIAA said that Jane Doe's motion to intervene matters little, because a federal court has already upheld the validity of the subpoena process.
"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."
The obvious problem with this is: who says she's "publicly distributing music online"? A court of law? A judge? No, just the RIAA. Sure, it may later be shown that she was, in fact, doing what they claim. They may have enough evidence against her to convince a judge to issue a warrant or a subpoena. Or, the RIAA may have made a mistake again. We have legal procedures in place to prevent abuse of the system, and these procedures are not being followed. In the past, the RIAA hasn't been exactly careful when determining who is or is not distributing copyrighted MP3s.
Even scarier:
"We informed the recording industry that one of our customers intended to challenge and asked the RIAA to deal with the lawyers directly.
Instead, according to Deutsch, the RIAA went to court recently and filed a motion to compel Verizon to provide the name.
Surprisingly (for those of us who have long considered them to be an evil company), Verizon is clearly doing all the right things here. They're only doing what they've already been forced by a court to do.
I wish Jane Doe the best of luck. She'll need it. Oh, and by the way, the first article mentions the EFF is working on fighting this too; they're always accepting donations.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
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!
It seems to me that whether she is guilty or innocent is irrelevent. The complaint here is that the RIAA is "circumventing" due process with their subpoenas, and it needs to be corrected.
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
And the FBI is violating the privacy rights of child pornographers who use the internet to distribute the content by using the same methods.
One should read their ISP's Terms of Service. If it says "we will assist law enforcement authorities and copyright holders" (maybe not in so many words) then yer screwed. And even if it does not say that, then your complaint is with the ISP and not the RIAA. Afterall, as far as they are concerned, you're violating their copyrights (or the copyrights of their members; no matter how much you agree with them or not).
So these days, instead of people becoming educated and reading contracts they get into, they get mommy and daddy to hire a lawyer to sue for them.
Uhh while that may be true you didn't closely read the article. The main argument is that the RIAA's tactics are unconstitutional because they violate due process. Sure she's going to say she didn't do anything wrong but even if she did I think the case has merit on the grounds of the due process argument and that would very much help the public.
The Anti-Blog
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!!!!
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
All she has to do is win, and that gives legal grounds for everyone else of the 1000 unfortunate souls to follow suit.
So, RIAA, when you can't sue the network or the users, what exactly are you going to do, will you finally ADAPT? Or will you try and buy/strongarm your way into another tactic to hang on to your ancient business model?
Survival of the fittest in action, unless the RIAA trims the fat, they're on their way out.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
I assume you mean this 'setback':
But Judge Joseph L Tauro said because the subpoenas were issued in Washington, DC they cannot be served in Massachusetts.
This really isn't a 'setback' at all. It was simple a procedural error. Those subpoenas will be filed again but this time in Massachusetts. Then they will be served.
Then there's this from the article:
"This is more invasive than someone having secret access to the library books you check out or the videos you rent,"
LMAO! So in other words, not very invasive at all. Besides, last time I looked checking books out of the library and renting videos was legal. Maybe because both are paid for! (Libraries operate on taxes in case you didn't know. That's what makes it a Public Library.)
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
That's a pretty lame excuse... I have several friends who have used Kazaa, most of which are PC novices, and everybody knew it first and foremost as a passport to free music. I don't think that argument will hold any water in court, particularly since(as noted above), she admits "participating" in the sharing network. There are plenty of reasons to despise the RIAA and their tactics, but this lady better have something good up her sleeve...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
It seems like the RIAA wants to become another department of the US and hold a cabinet position with the President. I can just see it now, The Department of the RIAA, an army of us.
Obviously.. this 'anonymous' user is Georgy ;)
Jane Doe used the Kazaa file-swapping software as a music player largely to listen to songs she had ripped from her own CDs and to music that came pre-loaded on her family computer. Which makes the best music player; WinAmp, MusicMatch, or Kazaa... hmmm... Not that I support the RIAA in any fashion, but come on.
you could quite easily use it to show what kind of music you like, for example. and still not really share anything(because you have set the speed to zero, or by other means).
it's not illeagal to simply use kazaa now is it? it's ridiculous how riaa acts as a police(and court) on what you're allowed to do. it's not riaa's job, if they see something wrong going on shouldn't they report it to a 3rd party(mainly, the police) that is supposed to punish law breakers? or should i as a normal man be responsible for trying to catch pickpockets and have the power and ability to sentence them on the spot too? if so what use there of a court system that's meant to provide fair hearing and sentences.
-
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Just as we keep telling them, their business model is outdated .... we need to understand that P2P download model is outdated. First the napster went, now P2P is gone. Just wait for the next generation of technology.
karma : former act as leading to inevitable results
Ah, but no one has ever proven in a court of law that trading/sharing files on a P2P network is illegal. Maybe they've proven that people downloading them *can potentially* damage their industry, but it's never been proven illegal to share files. Not only that, what if someone is using a file-sharing system to download the music, listen once, then delete the file? That is a legit use, just like me handing a tape to my friend to listen to for a week is a legit "fair use" doctrine. What the RIAA is so scared of, ultimately, is that it's near impossible to actually make it harder to share the files. In the days of cassette's and CD's you either bought a recordable tape to dub your friend's CD or tape, or you you couldn't get a copy of it. It's almost worth the extra $5 to just buy the full tape. But now you don't need to buy anything other than the computer and internet connection to get TONS of stuff for *nearly* free. The cost is far, far less. So the RIAA and MPAA see their profits dwindle because they've got nothing new or innovative to offer. Guess what, that's their problem, not mine. And no, they cannot abuse the law to force me to do it their way. That's a monopoly, and what even bigger industry giants like Microsoft have already been convicted of.
I say more power to this anonymous "Jane Doe." She'll most likely win.
I'm always unclear about the due-process and what it really means. Even if the (censored) wanted to get your name, address, etc from your ISP or even if you get your phone service from (censored), (censored), or (censored); can they just storm in like (censored).
This is like 1984's (censored-police, where even thinking bad thoughts can get you on a list. I mean that doesn't happen these days, does it?
Sincerely,
(censored)
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
As a couple of others have pointed out, it does not matter if she is guilty or not. She could be the bloody Boston Strangler (and I am sure Jack Valenti would liken her to that) for all anybody should care. Rights are something that everybody has, and they have to be protected.
She is innocent until proven guilty (remember that phrase?). In other words, she is innocent until convicted in another trial with another jury completely unrelated to this.
The RIAA and the record industry as a whole are on trial here, not Jane Doe.
She should have your blessing, too, because she is fighting for your freedom from tyranny.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
The government shouldnt be handling anything to do with P2P users, it's a civil matter (at least should be) and should result in lawsuits not prosecutions.
They should however start turning the screws when they see a team of lawyers using a flood of lawsuits (or threats thereof) as a form of revenue, and not to resolve legitimate grievances.
The legal system wasnt put in place for anyone to profit from.
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.
Instead of Media Player and WinAmp .. Just because you don't, doesn't mean everyone else does. It comes back to the ole gun arguement again .. Lots of different uses, but just by owning one doesn't make you a killer. The RIAA simply cannot be allowed to be above the law, ever. They must be reigned in, and some of the senators are noticing the victims of this are mostly innocent and the punishment is not fitting the crime. $11k fines for a swapped song? Try $5.
If you download an mp3, get it of a cd, you will open it and play it with MS installed apps.
So how exactly would a complete and utter noob get to install kazaa to play an Mp3? I know far more people that are convinved that Windows Media Player is the only way to play their music, and who think that since it has windows in front of it Linux can't play Mp3s.
Oh and yes they are of course right. Kernels are well known for not playing music :)
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Btw, you can go here at the eff to query the subpoenas.
At least clients/networks like eMule reward people for uploading and allowing incoming connections. During busy times, leechers on eMule have to wait about 4-5 times as long for files. I wish that eMule had an option to ban them all together, but when eMule servers get really busy, the leechers, or "LOW ID" people, can't get a single file.
More than enough BS
illegally uploaded/downloaded music, her anonymity should be protected. The RIAA is trying to extort money from individuals and frighten the community. They are NOT attempting to prove cases in court. In most cases, they couldn't. But the threat of extensive expensive litigation against a well funded corporate entity is enough for most people to buckle and settle.
This case serves no purpose, but to have the RIAA, going forward, serve sopoenas correctly (i.e. through a court). This case is not about sharing MP3's, although her lawyers seem to be about as off-base as the RIAA. Not much will come of this, except maybe some firmer stances on what Verizon and other ISP's are required to do in situations such as these. To my knowledge, that portion of the argument has already been upheld by a court, though. So much of this moot and dead in the water. Apparently, there isn't really a legitimate way of stopping these cowboys. Maybe I should create original material with similar names to popular RIAA artist tracks, offer them on Kazaa with a beowulf cluster and wait for them to download and prosecute me. Then, I could proove their tactics illegal and inaccurate. I dunno, I'll continue to boycott the bad music they sell for $17.99USD, as I am not interested in their digitized poop.
"Majority just means the idiots agree" -Ronh Atian
The RIAA sueing all the file traders
or
SCO sueing all the Linux users for licence fees.
They both have a few million lawsuits to get through in the next few years.
Now would be a good time to become a lawyer. There will be an unlimited supply of work for the next couple of thousand years.
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
In Sweden it's currently (come Jan 1st most certainly) legal to _download_ but not to _upload_. I.e - using KaZaa is perfectly legal as long as you don't share yourself.
it's in my head
> Well, atleast here in the US, ignorance is no defence.
Well duh. If they allowed that defence no one would ever be convicted.
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
NO.
Not only that, what if someone is using a file-sharing system to download the music, listen once, then delete the file? That is a legit use, just like me handing a tape to my friend to listen to for a week is a legit "fair use" doctrine.
You are retaining a copy of the music on your computer and now giving it to someone else.
Unless Kazaa deleted your file after they downloaded it, it would be the same.
Regardless, since when is ignorance an excuse?
... since the last decade of the 18th century (in the USA, anyway).
... until we have licensing for the use of a computer system, with basic computer-education to insure everyone is expected to have a certain level of knowledge, it is clear the law does not require that people know (or necessarilly be responsible for) anything their computer is doing without their knowledge.
Umm
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of the activity almost always is.[1] It goes to intent, it goes to motive, it goes to opportunity. If someone buries a body on your property without your knowledge, you are generally not tried for collusion with the murderer. If you are, and you can demonstrate that you didn't know it was happening, you are most certainly acquitted.
If many people are using Kazaa because they believe they need it to play back their own, legally ripped mp3s, then the RIAA doesn't have much of a case. Copyright violations have to be willful and intentional to receive most of the punitive rewards, and with computers things are even murkier, as trojan horse programs (which Kazaa arguably is, in this context), worms, and viruses often hijack people's computers to do things they have absolutely no idea are being done.
Or are we going to arrest everyone whose computer has been comprimised by SoBig.F or whatever it's latest iteration is, for DOSing Microsloth's web services? After all, "ignorance is no excuse..."
[1]Willful, or negligent, ignorance of course is an exception. Having a good idea someone is doing something neferious, but saying "I don't want to know!" isn't enough to get one off. However, true lack of knowledge that something bad is going on, even on one's own property, is in most cases a valid excuse. However, a computer user not understanding what a trojan or trojan-esque program is doing on their computer hardly qualifies
And I don't see even this government stooping to licensing computer use anytime soon.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
And by pleading the 5th, she is indicating that she might had done something illegal... a sure bet to get investigated further.
You can draw the same punishment for selling fake pot as you can for selling real pot.
I knew a kid who found that out the hard way. He thought it would be hilarious to sell an ounce of oregano to the guy everyone knew to be an undercover cop (small town with a "vice squad" consisting of two cops).
Turns out the law didnt care.
By the same token, would you get a lighter sentence for serving out a crappily encoded copy of Britney Spears latest album, full of pops and skips?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
Can you see them standing there in their tighty whities? I can.
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
this person knows how to rip her own music from CD. She's not using Kazaa to listen to her collection.
... I have almost all of my music on my hard drive in ogg format because it is easier and more pleasant to have all of my music at my fingertips than to fish around for CDs every 42 minutes, and NO, I absolutely do not under any circumstances engage in illegal file sharing), and then showed her another (or the same) nifty program to play them back. That program happened to be Kazaa, and it is perfectly likely that she had no idea it was making a chunk of her hard drive (and all of her music) available for others to copy.
This isn't Joe Blow downloading songs and thinking that he has to use Kazaa to listen to them.
"This person knows how to drive a car. She's not using her Corvett to drive down the highway."
Did you even think to semantically parse the statement you just made?
Of course she knows how to rip her own CDs. A friend probably showed her this nifty program to rip her CDs onto her hard drive (for convinience
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I live in the boston area and I find really sad that their is no due process for cases like these. I mean I find it sad that the RIAA and MPAA are conducting a witch hunt for piraters and yet ruin innocent people through doing this. I know that MIT has a stringent policy on piracy. I also know that Northeastern MASS has that policy too. My hat goes off the girl for taking on the search and policy at the MPAA and RIAA. Because we all know that their are some that are innocent of these searches of peoples machines. Its a subject that 2600 in Boston hates, and we should support free speech and not greed!!
LOW ID is differnet from a leecher, lowid is a client who can only initiate connections, for example people behind proxies.
leechers are people with a low credit.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
"Well, atleast here in the US, ignorance is no defence."
Ok, so you have a linux server on the net, you are a novice, I hack your server I use it to do bad things, it gets traced back to you, not to me, you get charged. You say " but I diden't know, I must have been hacked, it wasen't me... etc. etc. " the fact that you were "ignorant" of how to properly secure your machine should not make you responsible for the actions of another who hacked your machine. a license to use a computer would be nice but it dosen't exist as of now so this is all pretty much a grey area, I don't think that ancient sayings like "ignorance is no defence" are as clear cut in cyberspace.
but this lady better have something good up her sleeve...
Nah.. nothing good... just the constitution.. which doesn't mean shit lately (since we're consumers now, not citizens)
Responding to the point about the lame excuse, a lot of people REALLY are that dumb. I do, however, feel that this woman really wasn't.
Get paid to code OSS
I agree with you in some sense. I guess the bigger point I'm making is that it's all about processes. Microsoft's current business process isn't working out too great for them, what with all the virii and cost of their product vs. quality of said products and such. OpenSource and file-sharing seem to be much more popular and successful processes right now than the processes of "closed source" and strictly controlled media distribution channels. I suspect that with people sticking up for the right to do things the way they want to (i.e. Jane Doe sticking up for her rights to follow her own "process" - using Kazaa) that we'll eventually begin to see the processes change. It's unfortunate that companies like Microsoft and organizations like RIAA and the MPAA don't see the desire to change processes by their customers and are trying to force everyone to "do it the good ol' way." Ultimately their customers will abondon them completely in favor of processes that work better - open source and p2p being two such processes that appear to be working better.
What's worse, if the US government doesn't recognize these process change requests and go with the flow, we'll get clobbered in the greater world economy and power structure as the new processes begin to produce products and services ten times better than the old way of doing things.
The Japanese auto-industry did it to the American auto-industry.
Let's face it, Microsoft changed the process of computing -> Bill Gates put a computer on every person's desk at home and at work. (Well, many people, you understand what I mean) And Big Blue nearly died a horrible death not recognizing the changes Microsoft was making for the world. Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot and once again, the small guys "get it", and the big ones don't.
So Kazaa is changing how we find musicians and the songs they write. The RIAA had better figure it out quick or they too will be dying a horrible death.
Not that I disagree, but "Kazaa Media Desktop" does have media management/player functionality in the program, and their web page hypes those features over the P2P stuff. It's their way of pretending to be a legitimate program.
It's quite possible that a user wanted to use those features without understanding that they were sharing files. Kinda like how people suck their MP3s into iTunes or WMP without really understanding what's going on.
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.
Unfortunately, AFAIK lower courts seldom rule a law unconstitutional without precedent. This one will have to be carried to the US Supreme Court, a long haul. I wish her luck. I'm glad to see the EFF there.
Sorry, but no. Fair use does not give you the right to make copies of music you haven't paid for, even if you delete them later. Fair use is not a "try-before-you-buy" law, it lets you do certain things which copyrighted items you have legally purchased.
just like me handing a tape to my friend to listen to for a week is a legit "fair use" doctrine.
Fair use doesn't even enter into this. If you lend a friend a tape you are not making a copy, and so copyright law has absolutely no bearing. You are simply lending out a physical item, like a library. If you mean making a copy of a tape for a friend, then fair use certainly DOES NOT allow this. It is simply too minor a crime to be prosecutted for, however.
If you'd like to review the fair use doctrine for yourself try here or here. BTW, you are correct in that there is absolutely nothing illegal in using P2P services to share non-copyrighted items, or copyrighted items where you have the owner's permission to share.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
They are only accused of violating the law. They have not been found to actually violate the law.
Should a corporation turn over any personal information of an anonymous individual private individual to another corporation.
Lacking permission of the individual this is generally not permitted.
In the case where there is a court order the individuals wishes are overruled by the government.
Should the government overrule a persons right to privacy? On what grounds? Accusation without evidence? Accusation with circumstantial evidence?
What protections will be in place for this private information?
If a company can overrule my privacy rights, I should be allowed some way to pretect them.
I am not suggesting privacy for criminals, I am advocating that innocent people should retain their privacy until there is at least a reasonable chance they are guilty of something.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it your responsibility to know the law? If you get pulled over for speeding, the excuse of "I didn't know I was in a school-zone!" isn't gonna fly.
Hmmm....Prophylacticism....Did I just invent that word?
Kiddies, I've said this before and I'll say this again. If you HAVE to do P2P, install an open Wi-Fi access point on your home network. Keep all your goodies behind a firewall, but have that open Wi-Fi there. When the RIAA drags you into court, you will have a big wad of plausible denial on your side. There is NO LAW that makes you liable for unauthorized use of your network access.
Besides, if you're willing to share your music, why not share some bandwidth too?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Ignorance of the law isn't a defense.
Ignorance of the act is.
She ADMITS to using Kazaa to share. She KNOWS how to rip her files (and if anyone showed her how to rip them), I will put money on the fact that they told her to use either WMP or WinAMP.
The question that I didn't see answered, which is going to be very material to this case, was: what was she downloading? If it was music from independant artists or freeware, then she has done nothing wrong. Now I admit, most likely, she was downloading copyrighted music, and therefore in trouble, but if she claims she didn't, and can explain away her sharing as the legal kind, then the onus shoud be on the RIAA to prove otherwise, if they can't, and the judge isn't just another coporate worshiper, then she may just get away with this and set a very nice precident, something along the lines of, you actually have to file a suit and ask the judge to let you subpeona those records before getting them.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Ok, so you have a linux server on the net, you are a novice, I hack your server I use it to do bad things, it gets traced back to you, not to me, you get charged. You say " but I diden't know, I must have been hacked, it wasen't me... etc. etc. " the fact that you were "ignorant" of how to properly secure your machine should not make you responsible for the actions of another who hacked your machine. a license to use a computer would be nice but it dosen't exist as of now so this is all pretty much a grey area, I don't think that ancient sayings like "ignorance is no defence" are as clear cut in cyberspace.
Alright, I feel like I am getting trolled, but I couldn't resist.
That saying, to which the above poster was refering to, which is true, is "ignorance of the law is no defense." Which is a hell of a lot different than what you are describing. If you are truly ignorant of a crime being commited, even if it is using your property, then you have a pretty valid defense. Except in cases where the ignorance is willful, basically you see someone digging a hole in your yard at night with a big plastic bag, say about 6 feet long and 3 feet wide, and you simply ignore the situation and don't report it.
So yes, the "ignorance is no defense" saying is just as valid in cyberspace as it is anywhere else, unless you are ignorant of the meaning of that saying. There is nothing magical about cyberspace, all the smae basic rules apply, its just the execution that gets fuzzy.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Let's see, you have the huge coporations who own most of the govenment at this point versus an average serf, er... citizen. Not to be cynical about it, or maybe just to be cynical about it, but I don't think this lawsuit has a snowball's chance in hell. I would love to see this person win her case, and maybe undo some of the damage from the DMCA, but I just don't see it happening. The RIAA is going to do everything it can to convince the judge that she is just another pirate who is trying to hide behind that annoying privacy thing, and that the DMCA is necessary to finding and persecuting, er... prosecuting her. And the judge will probably buy it.
Perhaps I have just given up, but I think at this point we mihgt as well go all the way and rename the USA the UFSC (United Feudalistic States of the Corporations).
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
I am a strong believer in 'innocent until proven guilty', but I also see the humor in the irony of the RIAA winning.
Just imagine that it was impossible to find any music by any RIAA members online. People would go to the p2p networks, and only find music of artists that encouraged their files to be traded. Some of them wouldn't have the polish of commercial artists, but there would be enough "good" music for people to be happy. The end result would be diminishing interest in the RIAA bands.
Be careful what you wish for...
( As a footnote, if you do want to share music online, check out the bands and artists that allow their work to be redistributed freely. Listen to their music, and, if you like them, put them into your 'share' folder of your p2p app, with the information in the id3 tags [or whatever ogg uses], and a text file in the same folder explaining the copywrite information and links to the band's website. Of course, once you end up sharing enough megs of files this way, you'll probably get sued by the RIAA, so make sure you have a good lawyer and can countersue for costs. )
Copyright is a strict liability offense. This means that civil copyright violations do not have to be willful. A willful violation is more serious than a non-willful violation. Copyright law raises the maximum salutatory damages from $30K to $150K if the action is shown to be willful.
... copyright law is far more evil and perverse than even I believed. The idea that someone can sneak into your office, use your copy machine to illegally copy and distribute a book, and then get you thrown into jail for up to five years and fined $250,000 per offense is utterly and completely unjust, and worthy, quite frankly, of a violent change to the system (if need be).
Good God that's appalling. You are correct
Or is this limited to the copyright violator? If so, my point stands. It is not the unwitting user who has accidentally, and unknowingly, made a file accessible to others to download who has violated copyright law, it is the person actually doing the dowloading.
So, unless contributing to another's act of copyright violation doesn't require knowledge (which means the scenerio I outlined above is possible, in which case we should all be polishing our revolutionary guns [toung in cheeck, folk, toung in cheek. Holster those handcuffs, Mr. Spook.]), then the unwitting Kazaa user whose files someone else is copying is still off the hook.
Otherwise, quite frankly, any use of any computer within the boarders of the United States carries with it an unacceptable level of liability, and we should all either relocate to a saner jurisdiction or go back to using abicusses.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
This strikes me as a statement made by someone who knows he is going to lose. What he failed to mention was that it was upheld by the DC Circuit Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
Now if you've ever studied the law, you probably know that the circuit court decisions are only considered binding in the circuit in which they were filed. When a Massachusetts court ruled that the subpoenas were invalid in their court system, that means that the RIAA in those cases is now bound by the decisions of the 1st circuit courts, which may not match those of the DC circuit (and probably won't, given that the DC courts are one of the more conservative circuits, and thus more likely to be friendly to the RIAA than the 1st circuit would be....
Now enter Jane doe in Sacramento, CA. California is part of the 9th circuit. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is well-known to be one of the most liberal circuits in the country. It also issues the most zany rulings of any circuit, probably largely to force touchy issues to the Supreme Court. (It is the circuit with the most overturned rulings as well, though, so don't assume that a favorable ruling there will necessarily stand.)
The point is that this won't end until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the issue, and to my knowledge, they have not. This injunction filing in a California court is a very good and potentially effective step towards kicking the abusive parts of the RIAA squarely in the nuts.
Not all of the RIAA is technologically inept, though. I've dealt with parts of the RIAA recently, and they were very professional and courteous. It's too bad their upper management has taken that organization, which performs a lot of very useful services, and corrupted it, co-opting it to make abusive attacks on the public. I daresay that they do not speak for all of the RIAA, much less for all of its members. Here's hoping they get put in their place.
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
As they download files, chunks of the files they have already downloaded become available to other users.
Yes, it sucks for users who don't have any content, but once they start downloading files, they have chunks to share with others.
As for getting their first files, they could go to special servers for people with no files. This could automatically be handled by eMule.
More than enough BS
Yes, I said this "Copyright infringement only becomes criminal when it occurs on a massive scale". Downloading $1000+ worth of music in a six month period seems a tad excessive to me. Of course, the FBI does not track file sharers, and gathering the evidence to prove you infringed that much in the necessary time period would be quite difficult. I know the RIAA is trying to use bogus calculations to exaggerate the level of infringement, but hopefully these efforts will be tossed out by the courts. AFAIK, to date all actions against individual file sharers have been civil in nature, not criminal.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
Now I admit, most likely, she was downloading copyrighted music, and therefore in trouble, but if she claims she didn't, and can explain away her sharing as the legal kind, then the onus shoud be on the RIAA to prove otherwise, if they can't, and the judge isn't just another coporate worshiper, then she may just get away with this and set a very nice precident, something along the lines of, you actually have to file a suit and ask the judge to let you subpeona those records before getting them.
The thing is, she is entitled to due process whether or not she is innocent or guilty.
The fact that she is very plausably innocent (though quite possibly not) should serve to underscore this point to the unwashed masses whose kneejerk response is to scream for the pirate's head on a platter hours before the court papers are even filed, but it should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her contention that subpeanas being issued without court order identifying individuals for acts of potential barratory by a cartel are inappropraite and probably unconstitutional.
Copyright law is appalling in that one can be put into prison for 5 years for doing something utterly unwittingly and unknowingly. If in fact one can go to prison for utterly unwittingly and unknowingly contributing to someone elses violation of the law (who themselves may be doing so utterly unwittingly and unknowingly), then we really are living in a police state the awful powers of which we are just now waking up to.
It has been rather obvious to anyone in the digital world that copyright is the tool for oppression and censorship of those in the developed world (in the latter 20th century and 21st centuries, at least), but to think that people can be imprisoned for events to which they are peripherally bound without their knowledge is truly unthinkable. I'm not talking about ignorance of the law, which has never been an excuse, but ignorance that an action has even been committed (by oneself, or someone one has a connection to that makes them an unwitting contributor).
Certainly if this woman didn't know Kazaa was sharing her files with others on the internet, she not only wasn't aware of the copying that was going on, she wasn't even aware that she was contributing to the potential act.
Any system that would hold someone in such circumstances guilty of anything or hold them accountable for even one penny of damages, much less imprison them, is a system that needs to be scrapped immediately and, if necessary, forcefully. (to my knowledge, however, contributory copyright infringement does require knowledge of the fact, or at least "any sensible person should have known", but IANAL and I could be wrong. If I am, it is past time to emigrate or take up arms, and the former is a much higher percentage game than the latter, so I'm outta here)
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"If she says she tried to stop the program from sharing her files, then she knew the program was capable of sharing files and that the sharing was wrong."
Wrong, you have no idea if that it true. She could have been following directions from a friend or someplace online for installation of Kazaa. 'Click OK. Click and add a username. Click to uncheck this box. Click to check this box...'. Only now she finds out she is being sued. She goes back and says "well this is what I did when I installed the software..." Did she try and prevent others from getting her files? Yes. Did she know she was doing it? Doesn't say, in this example - no.
so how would anyone new join in? by sharing worthless files? or do you want to keep people away and maintain a small clique of 1337 h4x0rz ?
The parent does not quite understand the eMule network. lowid is when a client is behind a firewall or proxy or something and can't accept incoming connections. eMule doesn't have a penalty for not sharing enough files. Although the client will up your maximum download rate if you raise your maximum upload rate.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
While this particular usage (temporary P2P downloading) isn't explicitly stated in the body of law, it could very well be supported by a judge anyway. There are other means by which you can do the same thing---the radio, the music store, the library---and as such, creating that copy does no more harm than walking to the music store, demoing the CD on one of their little machines, and leaving without buying it. In all cases, you have listened to it once, but have not kept a copy.
Generally, in order to obtain damages, there must be harm. A copy made without harm, such as an archival backup copy, cannot be ruled as infringement. Temporary copies of computer programs for execution purposes are not infringement according to the DMCA. Section 512 provides similar protection to ISPs who cache temporary copies of material.
However, what really throws things in the computer user's favor is Chapter 10, subchapter D, section 1008.
Care to explain how a computer doesn't qualify? Or, for that matter, how making a tape for your friend doesn't qualify (since that's the exact thing that this passage of law was meant to protect)? Are we not paying that $8 to the government so we can use that CD burner in that way? Are we not paying extra costs on the media to go back to the copyright holders?It seems to me that this whole thing is a sham. The RIAA and others got laws passed that cost us money to protect their copyrights. Then when people actually start taking advantage of the intended purpose of those laws, they come back and whine that "oh, those laws don't apply here."
I call bullshit.
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
But deliberately running a P2P server could could be criminal if it distributes songs worth $1,000 in 180 days. Using Apple's $0.99 per song retail price, a well connected P2P server could easily do this. Actual prosecution would require that the a Federal prosecutor file changes. The RIAA cannot ask a prosecutor to do so, but not force them to file.
At least so far, all of the RIAA's actions against P2P users have been civil not criminal. They have gotten the government to use criminal law against large scale counterfeiters.
There is much confusion in these discussions because of the distinctions between criminal and civil law. If your knowledge of the law comes from watching Law & Order on TV, then you may think that criminal law is the only law that exists. Civil law is thought to be too boring for TV drama. Shows like Law & Order will take real civil cases and turn them into criminal cases by having someone connected to the case be murdered and/or raped.
No I wasn't. Nothing gives you the right to make copies of copyrighted works without the owner's permission, with the exception of fair use and other similar, more specific, statutes.
While this particular usage (temporary P2P downloading) isn't explicitly stated in the body of law, it could very well be supported by a judge anyway. There are other means by which you can do the same thing---the radio, the music store, the library---and as such, creating that copy does no more harm than walking to the music store, demoing the CD on one of their little machines, and leaving without buying it. In all cases, you have listened to it once, but have not kept a copy.
When you listen to the radio, the radio has paid to distribute the copyrighted work to you (you are allowed to copy songs of the radio, BTW). Listening to music at the music store or borrowing from the library has absolutely no bearing on this, since you are not making any copies, just borrowing a physical object. It doesn't matter if you feel that you haven't done any harm, or that it is the same thing, the execution of the act (copying a copyrighted song) is illegal, even if you delete it later. An analogy could be if you ask your neighbor to borrow his car vs. if you take it without his permission. Even if you bring it back, and you feel that "no harm was done," or "it's the same thing" it would be illegal to take his car and you could be prosecuted (not a perfect analogy, but hopefully you get my point).
Generally, in order to obtain damages, there must be harm. A copy made without harm, such as an archival backup copy, cannot be ruled as infringement. Temporary copies of computer programs for execution purposes are not infringement according to the DMCA. Section 512 provides similar protection to ISPs who cache temporary copies of material.
When did I say that backup copies weren't legal, they are expressly protected under Title 17. However, you are talking about apples and oranges here, since all of the rights you mention only apply if you have a legal copy of the copyrighted work. You do not have the right to make "backups" of software you don't own. As far as determining harm and damages, that is left up to a judge to decide that on a case by case basis. However, a judge may very well decide that making illegal copies of copyrighted works, regardless of the duration, IS harmful to the copyright owner, depending on the circumstances.
Care to explain how a computer doesn't qualify? Or, for that matter, how making a tape for your friend doesn't qualify (since that's the exact thing that this passage of law was meant to protect)? Are we not paying that $8 to the government so we can use that CD burner in that way? Are we not paying extra costs on the media to go back to the copyright holders?
After rereading this passage several times I believe what it is saying is that you may use your recording devices (including computers) in any manner that you want, providing you are not violating any other copyright sections of course. This means that while you may be able to make a backup CD for your personal use, I don't see anything in there that gives you a right to distribute copyrighted works, including giving copies to your friends. Of course, IANAL, and if you seriously intend to use this defense in a court of law I suggest you get the advice of a good IP lawyer.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
SCO is using trumped up, untrue (at least until proven otherwise) press releases and obviously basing much of their arguement on code that is NOT theirs, that they DO NOT own copyright over and is in NO WAY a violation of their IP. Basically, put in simpler terms, they are lieing.
The RIAA is at least representing real copyright violations in some cases. Let's face it, though Jane Doe may be completely innocent, and certainly the RIAA has made gross mistakes in the recent past, no one, even here on /. can deny that there are those who use p2p file sharing software to basically aviod buying music.
SCO is using lies and deceit and running an extortion racket pure and simple, whether you believe that is to simply pump up their stock price or to extort money out of innocent end users of Linux, what they are doing is just plain wrong and should be illegal.
IMHO to even hint at a similarity between the RIAA suits and SCO almost, unintentionally lends credence to the SCO claims. There are those who feel that the RIAA has every right to persue those who share copywritten files. Whether you or I agree with their tactics is not the point, in part, the basis of their claims are legitmate to a much greater extent than anything SCO has uttered.
Please let us not confuse the two here especially amongst the knowlegeable!
The RIAA is using unconstitutional tactics to persue their cause and that is definitely something to be up in arms about and I support Jane Doe, whoever she is in the fight to uphold her constitutional rights. SCO is persuing an entirely bogus CAUSE in the first place so with them the cause itself is wrong.
Thanks for listening, we now return you to your regularly scheduled /. postings.
The Matrix is real... but I'm only visiting!
Ahhh... But you miss one point that the courts hide and the judges will never tell you about. It's called Jury Nullification. It is part of the whole point of the process to give the people power over the courts, lawmakers, and the government in general. Since the Government does not like losing power, they will not share anything about Jury Nullification with you.
So, what is Jury Nullificatin? It the the process by which, to use your example:
if(lawYouDontAgreeWith==broken) janeDoe!=guilty
If you do not agree with the law, then return an innocent verdict, or side with the defendant in civil court. The whole point is that if you can convince a Jury the law is wrong, you will not be convicted of it. Jury Nullification is the second most powerful tool a citizen has, next to the right to vote. Of course, it requires a Jury trial, and educated Jury members, so yeah, she's pretty much screwed.
Read more about Jury Nullification here.
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
You misunderstand what the LowID in eMule/eDonkey network represents. Leechers come in all flavours, Low ID and High ID. A Low ID signifies that you are behind a firewall and/or cannot accept incoming connections. A High ID is derived from your IP address, as far as I know. Mine changed when I changed my static IP. Obviously, a leecher can have a High ID; leech status is established via the rating numbers that appear in user info.
Now no one likes Low IDs (and if you CAN accept incoming connections you should check your config or try a different server) because somehow the false rumour got around that Low IDs are leeches. They can't upload to as many people (to other Low IDs in other words), but they're not necessarily leeches.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"