Slashdot Mirror
Boston University Student Challenges RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A Boston University student identified only as one of the 21 'John Does' in Arista v. Does 1-21 has challenged the RIAA's alleged right to get his or her identity from the school, bringing a motion to vacate the ex parte discovery order obtained by the RIAA, and to quash the subpoena served on the university. John Doe's court papers (PDF) argue, among other things, that the RIAA's papers are 'based on a flawed theory that having copyrighted music files on an individual's computer or on an assigned folder on Boston University's server is a "distribution" of such copyrighted music files, where such folder is merely accessible by others.'"
Could be applying to the RIAA pretty soon.
You'll be needing it.
Go him. He has a good argument involving the "distribution" part (not that he should have to argue).
:)
And, yes, I'd be saying this even if I was for the RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer, what does this mean:
"I am surprised, and disappointed, that the illegal joinder of Defendants wasn't also attacked at this point. Someone really needs to take the RIAA to task over their repeated violation of this federal court order."
What federal court order?
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Essentially, as I read it he's arguing for no criminal liability for illegal redistribution due to having no intent to distribute. Yet he admits to having placed copyrighted works in public folders on a public university system, which allowed others to copy his work. Further, he must have had the ability to set filesystem permissions to intentionally prevent redistribution. I think he's liable. If they can't prove criminal misconduct, at the least by his own admission they can prove civil negligence.
...to support independent music.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Its your American right to distribute music! It's lude, crude, litigious, OUTRAGEOUS!
So if I leave a CD laying on a table where someone else might see it, am I "civilly negligent"? What stupidity.
I just have a few questions which probably are irrelevant to all this but, what happens if you have 4 or 5 people split the cost of a few albums equally and then listen to the music between themselves on a folder available over a network connection... is this breaking the law? If that so when does it become legal? Would they have to be living with each other for example having music available to other family members over a network in the home? Or am I not even supposed to be doing that?
This could lead to some interesting complications when dealing with online storage.
For example, if a person has music online and believes that it is secured, would they be liable if someone breaks in and makes it available to others? I could see instances where this other person breaks in, makes the music available and then reports to the RIAA after a number of downloads are done.
Now some people would say that security is your responsibility, but how do you handle environments where someone else is providing a service and you don't control everything?
The argument being made is not the he had no intent to redistribute, but instead that there is no evidence that any redistribution ever occurred, and if it did, there is no allegation that it *actually* occurred.
fairness never had anything to do with what the riaa is doing or has done. the riaa is pursuing control. control ossified into "law" when laws on the subject matter only applied to a handful of distributors of music. but now that everyone with an internet connection is a potential distributor of music, the "law" is basically antiquated bullshit
you should stop asking questions with the idea of fairness in the forefront of your mind. instead work along the mental model of schoolyard bully trying to get what he wants, then the answer to your questions are obvious:
"no, you can't do that, because i don't control it. that's not fair? too bad"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How could people be arrested for accessing networks without permission, via Wifi or any other means... but RIAA can browse around using whatever means necessary? I'm guessing its just p2p software or ISP subpoenas?
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Duh. Isn't that what network connections are for, distributing data? He has no case.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Digital copying and copyright infringement are two hot topic issues that affect practically all geeks in some way. If you'd rather hear about obscure single-line improvements in the Linux Kernel,all the time, this isn't the place for you.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
If I play music over my speakers others can hear it.
If I stream music off my hard drive, how is this different than playing it over the speakers?
If people play it off my hard drive how is that different than playing it over the speakers.
The above assumes private playing of a valid music source.
There is a very fine distinction to be argued here. That will have to cover buffering, decoding and all sorts of stuff.
For some reason you think that geek only refers only to the technical aspects of computers, while it can apply to anyone who is intensely interested in any subject. I am a computer geek/nerd and also a law geek/nerd. Please back off you insensitive and uncomprehending clod!
how much do you pay to read? Nothing? not stop yer bitchin!
Just wait until book publishers have their way!
Click on "Preferences" in the menubar just below the /. logo. Then click on "Homepage" on the next menubar. Scroll down to "Customize Stories on the Homepage" and change the radio button next to "Your Rights Online" (last option in the list) to the big red no sign.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
who are illegally distributing music to me through the solid walls of my friend's house from three blocks over.
Sometimes they distribute music to her from 5:30am to 2am.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
replace "might" with "will"
the riaa is dying. the dinosaur is still large and terrible and one swipe of its tail can take out dozens. but the wound is mortal, and pretty soon it will be stone cold dead. what we are witnessing is merely the violent transition to death of a business system made rapidly extinct by technological innovation
the law is about 40 years behind the technology, and this discrepancy is driving everything we are seeing. it is of course utterly insane to sue people for thousands of dollars for pointing and clicking on music files. and yet, there it is. in some ossified minds still stuck in the year 1977, suing your customers somehow seems prudent
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
But what if his intent was only to give himself access to his data from any location on campus?
In that case, it is not distribution. It is giving himself location free and operating system unlimited access to his purchased content.
If possession is 9/10ths of the law, then my receipt says I can do whatever I want with my legally purchased content so long as I don't produce copies for financial gain.
There is law against selling copies of content without access to copyrights. There is law against copying content without access to copyrights. There is no law against making one's legally purchased content accessible to oneself (unless you break encryption in the process).
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
Hope his folks have money...
It is as bad as you think and they really are out to get you.
What if I moved all my CDs onto a home computer, for personal use so I don't have to fiddle with CDs in a changer all the time. I put them in a shared folder so my Receiver can access and play them.
I live in the middle of nowhere, I don't secure my wireless router because I prefer it that way. (That and its a 500+ foot drive up my dirt road once you turn off the main road) Either way, I don't want my network secured from someone piggybacking off my signal.
However, IF someone were to connect to my network, I would be in the same situation as many of these students. There was no intent to distribute to others. I simply wanted to have my access to my files unhindered by encryption and permission schemes.
People may say that I'm different because I live on a mountain and 5 miles from the nearest town. What if it was only 1 mile?
2000 feet?
50 feet?
How close do I need to be before my 'intent to distribute' is proven despite the fact that my network topology has not changed?
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
A better analogy would be to say he has some music files, and he puts it on a shared folder somewhere.... oh wait...
But seriously *WTF* is with all the analogies. The original concept is not that hard to completely understand. If he put it in his home directory, and the default permissions were open (i.e. umask being set stupidly), then I would say he has an argument. However, if he had to explicitly change permissions on it, or put it in something analagous to a 'public_html', intent to distribute can be argued. If you put a big sign on your drive saying 'I put music on here, feel free to copy it', it's obvious you are inviting the activity.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
If one more person posts an analogy involving a CD left on a table in a public place, I will club this baby seal to death.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
lets say i lose my (80gb) iPod on a train...
does that mean that i have to throw away all my CDs at home? I mean, if that iPod is now in someone else's hands, i've "distributed" music - and would be liable under the rules... remember, a CD is nothing more than shiny plastic... i'm given a license to listen to that music... i don't "own" anything but the shiny plastic.
what if i was robbed? As far as i can tell, not only would i have been robbed of my iPod, but i'd have to go home and throw out my CDs on top of it, else, i'd be liable for distributing hundreds of CD's worth of copyrighted materials.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
That almost sounds like a joke these days.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Am I breaking the law?
Are the people who made and sold this device breaking the law?
If yes to the above, why haven't they been sued out of existence yet?
(Note: this is an illustration to prove the ridiculous positions that the RIAA has attempted to stretch existing laws.)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The best place to learn about the RIAA's "making available" theory, and the arguments pro and con, is the case file in Elektra v. Barker. Be sure to read the transcript, in which the Judge skeptically questions the RIAA lawyer about it.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I almost pity the RIAA.
It is suing the people who would have been its future customers, given the time to earn a living to pay for their product. But now they are going to be looking for a legal means of getting good music without paying the RIAA for it.
The RIAA is basically driving its future customers into the inviting arms of its competitors: independent developers.
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
This is a great example of what I feel is one of the biggest problems with corporatist free market economies. It is, of course, just a relatively small part of an even larger problem stemming from the increasing anonymity and facelessness of current society, in that back in the "old" days I get this feeling that there was a larger degree of "personal accountability", "being a good citizen" and "making ends meet and being happy" going on, whereas now every Joe Shmuck wants to get paid not just for farting, but for every time you remember him farting. That smile on your face fifteen years from now when you remember? Ding! That'll be 50 cents for remembering that time he farted, thank you very much.
This is making me very sad for our society, indeed.
They need to use the Library argument of putting a photocopier in a library.
Just because the means to commit copyright infringement is in place, doesn't mean that it is happenning.
Basically, by saying that he did not have the intent to distribute, he is making a claim that he did not have a Mens Rea to break the law. However, I am not sure that this is a valid legal argument. It will depend on what the statute and case law have established as the mens rea for illegal music distribution. It is entirely possible that merely placing music on an unsecured network is enough to meet the "intent to distribute" mens rea, and in that case, he is SOL. IANL, yet.
Except that you haven't purchased the content... you've purchased a license to USE the content, in certain ways.
I'm not saying I agree with the RIAA, but that's an important point to keep in mind.
-Daniel
What if someone leaves a case of beer in an unlocked car and some kids take it?
What if someone at the library gets up and you copy his CD?
Are you kidding me??
All of these far-fetched analogies would be appropriate if they weren't that: far-fetched. What is the likelihood of the above actually happening, let alone resulting in criminal charges??
On the other hand, how often does a college student knowingly share a folder on their PC with the network (that doesn't happen by accident, folks!), and storing their entire mp3 collection in said shared folder? If you've spent any time on a college dorm network in the last 10 years, you have a pretty good idea.
These "analogies" that so many Slashdotters parade to undermine the legitimacy/logic of copyright law are nothing but specious "devil's advocate" nitpicking.
Without commenting on this particular case, I really wish people would keep their imaginations in check and accept the reality that a lot (at the very least) of these students in similar cases are doing exactly what the RIAA is accusing them of.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Having shown the files are likely to have been illegally trafficked, the RIAA has sufficient cause to move forward with the case and get the identity of the student. How would anyone be convicted if you need to prove they were guilty in order to get a search warrant to find evidence proving them guilty?
I just have a few questions which probably are irrelevant to all this but, what happens if you have 4 or 5 people split the cost of a few albums equally and then listen to the music between themselves on a folder available over a network connection... is this breaking the law?
The MAFIAA companies have already slammed at least one company where employees were sharing their music over their network. I do not think it was criminal at the time but the MAFIAA took all of the companies assets just the same.
What you are looking at is the difficulty of making a private or public electronic library. If we want free libraries in the future, copyright law must be drastically changed. The way things are going, we will end up with a pay per play memory hole where everything is expensive and nothing can be trusted. Copyright law is intends to enrich the public domain, but it has been used to outlaw it.
Society is finally crawling out of the information dark age caused by public broadcast monopolies. Yes, people were less informed under consolidated print and broadcast than they were with more expensive but independent printing technology. Finally, with free electronic publication, we can hear voices other than those of two or three industrial giants.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
i think there was some book awhile back called "future shock" and i think it was about change happening too fast. for some ossified minds in the music industry, there is a sort of mental whiplash inability to deal with the kind of change going on here
and perhaps they are trapped like rats on a sinking ship: the writing on the wall according to many is the entire death of music driven by corporations. when you own the distribution model: vinyl, cds, tapes, then corporatization is possible. but when you can't own the disitribution model, what business is there? of course there is still touring, product placement/ advertising, music portal sites/ radio: where to go to find new music, etc. but all of these businesses are peripheral subsets of the old corporate world. the old corporate world is rapidly sinking, and these peripehral business pieces will carry on on their own, less than 1/10th of the previous business model in terms of revenue
the end of the golden age of music media. as a consumer, who fucking cares: you'll still get music, it will just be more fractured acording to genre, more local. huge pop hits? no corporation to drive them anymore. and goodriddance to the likes of lindsay lohan, that's all i say on that subject
so what happens when an entire industry is suddenly and rapidly driven to extinction? no time was made for gradual transition, plotting a course to new business models. well, they still have a lot money and lawyers, so what do they do? the only thing left they can do: sue normal people. it's absurd, and it's also desperate bordering on fanatical denial
and it will dwindle and die eventually as well, and nothing will be left except a bizarre socioeconomic/ legal case study on the sudden death of entire marketplace. pitiful
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
"if the performance is by audio means only, the performance is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space"
So if you set up a sound system that can scale to a larger venue, you can be considered to be intentionally broadcasting it. Putting data in an explicitly shared would be considered analogous to that.
These 'gray lines' people like to jump on in terms of real-world analogies have been recognized and answered in law already. You can probably reasonably tell whether the person's share was intentional or incidental (most modern OSes and large-scale networks make it hard to accidentally share data such that people can get it without circumventing or bypassing a mechanism meant to prevent it). If his directory was by default world readable, there is a fair argument he was using it for his own purposes never realizing the world could get at it. If he put it in something like public_html, it's hard to argue that he didn't mean it. In which case, public_html would be like putting a few hundred speakers throughout a town and playing the music, and then claiming you didn't mean for anyone but you to hear it.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I'm sorry, but the last time I bought a CD (pre-RIAA lawsuit BS), there was no license listed on it beyond "Do not make illegal copies of this disc."
You don't have to make a copy of a music CD to share it to yourself over a network. And encoding mp3s from a music CD which contains no encryption is not the same as making an illegal copy of the disc. It's called "making the content accessible through multiple devices" or "format-shifting" for short.
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
I am hoping that the RIAA and MPAA will start to see a little bit of reality here in the next few weeks/months...
This whole thing falls into the same category as
1. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (in public)
2. Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
I am surprised I haven't been prosecuted for driving down the street in my car with my windows down and the music blaring so loud that other people can hear it...I am not talking about being prosecuted for "noise ordinance violation" but for "unauthorized music distribution"...
May the RIAA/MPAA/ETC go Tango Uniform!!
--E--
I call BS on your calling BS.
Ever been to a library? Many library's check out CDs. The RIAA would contend that is illegal file sharing. At some point the RIAA may get around to suing libraries but the reason they haven't is strictly priorities not ability to make the claim.
The RIAA does not allege any illegal file sharing took place, only that it was possible. On that flimsy basis they are filing suit.
A party is supposed to perform an investigation **before** filing suit to make sure something illegal actually occurred. The RIAA does the opposite, they make accusations and file suit to gain access to compulsory subpoenas so they can clone and pick through people's personal computer hard drive and personal records. That is not allowed. That is why this RIAA John Doe suit is impermissible.
It sounds far-fetched...until it happens to you. When the RIAA runs out of college students to sue and a process server knocks on your door, I think your tune will change.
Won't happen, right? Well, based on the specious logic in this case, you could be liable for *failing to prevent* other people's access to your licensed versions copyrighted material...which is an entirely different matter from you actually distributing it.
How about if you forgot to lock a door to your house one night, and the police threw you in jail for failing to protect your property (especially if no theft had taken place)?
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Should it be against the law to share with your friends and family?
My answer is no and publishers need to get over it. Digital restrictions don't work and society is not going to tolerate the kind of laws required to make people obey. The point of publishing is to share information. It happened before mechanical presses and insane copyright law and it will happen when those silly laws are repealed. People have been singing, dancing, writing and otherwise entertaining each other forever and they will continue to do so. It is natural and right for people to share catchy tunes and intersting ideas with each other. Laws that forbid that kind of activity rob everyone for the benefit of a few. The laws required to enforce that kind of robbery are increasingly insane. The thousands of lawsuits launched in the US each year are thousands of people who are threatened with losing their life savings, reputation and earning power. It is a reign of terror designed to keep money flowing to obsolete businesses. People are not going to put up with that for long.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Indeed - the key word there is "illegal." It says nothing about copying the disk for *legal* purposes.
They do intentionally word it so that one might think that ALL copies are illegal.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
"These "analogies" that so many Slashdotters parade to undermine the legitimacy/logic of copyright law are nothing but specious "devil's advocate" nitpicking."
Exactly! As the RIAA says," If the analogy doesn't fly, you must comply!!"
Where's Johnny Cochrane when you need him?? Oh right, DEAD!
Actually, I think a lot of college students unknowingly share files on their computer on dorm networks - they might have had p2p programs on their computer that created shared folders, caused their harddrive to be shared, or they might have a virus that does this. Have you ever browsed around a dorm network?? I have seen things that were clearly not meant to be shared.
Maybe a more acceptable analogy would be: should a library be liable for copyright infringement if they do not issue a copyright disclaimer to patrons? My library has large collections of dvds/cds/software. What if I copy a dvd? What if I decide to rip a CD to my ipod?
Let's be clear...
There is no license. There is only copyright law. A copyright holder may offer a license to BMG to distribute a work, and which you then buy. You own that copy. It's yours. You don't own a license. Copyright law however dictates what you may do with that copy, such as making additional copies and giving them away, but there is no license anywhere in the picture.
Is there any way you or anyone else could file an amicus curiae brief in that case and point out how the RIAA has been ignoring that order for so long? Or maybe just send the judge some other type of brief, memo or whatever asking them to take judicial notice of that case. Or maybe just send the Doe's attorney a nice note pointing it out?
:(
I'd really like to see them get taken to task for ignoring court orders. In my book, that is not something a reputable lawyer should do, especially not if they do it habitually
Sorry, but I can't buy that. Clearly he is permitted by previous rulings to make his personal copies and store them somewhere. If your argument is that he is a vicarious enabler of someone else being able to violate copyright, then you have to show that he has no other reason to perform the action of copying files into a public file space. However, he can assert that he placed them there for backup and for his own access. Your only counter-claim is his incompetence in not modding the files. There is a big difference between criminal intent and stupidity/ignorance.
Actually, a Windows desktop in a workgroup setup (the typical setting for a home PC) shares the Shared Documents (and Music subfolder) by default. So actually, yes, it -does- "happen by accident".
These "analogies" that so many Slashdotters parade to undermine the legitimacy/logic of copyright law are nothing but specious "devil's advocate" nitpicking. You're obviously not familiar with the legal system. I really wish people would keep their imaginations in check and accept the reality that a lot (at the very least) of these students in similar cases are doing exactly what the RIAA is accusing them of. BUt what of the students who ARN"T doing this and get sued? If we DON'T have discussions like this, and air thoughts/situations etc... people like them will be screwed over. Anyways, the burden of proof is on the RIAA.
I dumped all my mp3s in a "shared" directory accessible via http so that I could listen to my music anywhere on campus. This was before the ipod craze, and I only had a Rio500 and a Minidisc player. I set the .htaccess file in Apache to only allow connections from the university network. Any time I was in a lab, all I had to do was open a browser, enter my dorm computer's IP, and I could rock out the whole time I was working. The university networking and telecom people never gave me any trouble because of it.
"I really wish people would keep their imaginations in check and accept the reality that a lot (at the very least) of these students in similar cases are doing exactly what the RIAA is accusing them of."
Whether or not they are doing exactly the things they are accused of has lost its relevance lately. What is more relevant is the flagrant and irrefutable violation of numerous laws that civil entities have committed and are continuing to commit in an attempt to circumvent the judicial system in place to further their unjust enrichment. I'd like to see a US District Attorney that gives a damn about that.
NewYorkCountryLawyer,
The Exhibits in Elektra v. Barker appear to be screenshots of file sharing software (and a list of infringing files compiled by an unknown party).
Surely, this can't be all the evidence that was presented in that case, can it?
Screenshots can be easily forged, and do not necessarily identify the person using the file trading software. Is this the sole basis of their case?
-ted
Meddle not in the affairs of students, for they have grand ambitions and idle hands.
You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
If you have LEGAL MP3's on your computer and I hack into your computer and copy them. Does that make YOU responsible for the copywrite infringement? I know thats a little more extreme than what the article is about but you can see where I am going with it...
MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
The point is surely that unless the RIAA can prove in a court of law that this was irrefutably the intention, then there is no case to answer.
You can break the law as much and as often as you like, but don't get caught. If enforcement becomes pro-active, then freedom is dead (see PATRIOT). Penalties exist for breaking laws, not for possibly breaking laws.
Nothing at all.
Listening to shared music was a feature of Microsoft's P2P experiment, "threedegrees" [as in three degrees of separation.]
Windows Home Server products will be available from HP and others along about September. Includes a free {or vanity plate] Windows Live! address. Free SDK to develop your own home server apps available now.
Windows Home Server
The rules are really quite simple. You want to be an internet radio broadcaster or an internet music distributer? Then get the appropriate license. You want a risk-free download? Go to a known-good source like iTunes.
The issue here isn't whether he did or did not distribute the music, or his intention to do so or not. The issue here is that he was spied upon on the basis of having music available (which is not proof positive of copyright infringement) without any actual evidence of the alleged infringement. Since doing so would be an invasion of privacy any evidence, even if it definitively proved he was guilty, was obtained through illegal means and thus is inadmissible. So the question becomes not did he distribute, etc, but can the RIAA invade the privacy of anyone they feel might be infringing, even without any evidence of infringement?
Further, some form of copyright is ensconced within the US constitution, so to achieve the ideal you propose would require a successful constitutional amendment.
No copyright laws are mandatory. Copyright laws are entirely elective and must meet Constitutional goals to be valid. The basis of US copyright law comes from this innocent looking grant of permission:
If at anytime authors and inventors are hindered by copyrights or patents, the laws are unconstitutional. Perpetual copyrights and patents are unconstitutional. Any law which limits your freedom and fails to promote progress of science and useful arts is unconstitutional. A person who believes in minimizing government intrusion would conclude that most current copyright laws are unconstitutional and that real rights have been trampled to protect private and public revenue.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
For the most part, I'm along with everyone else in the "screw the RIAA" arguments, I'm not sure this case will be such an easy win. I feel that the RIAA will argue that the person is a distributor because when installing 99.9% of P2P programs, there's an option talking about allowing others to download from you, etc etc. Please don't flame, though -- I do support the case and frankly, I'm all for the RIAA getting blown away on this issue.
I also hope that if they try to reword the law to make the word 'distribution' more clear, that someone challenges them if it could even POSSIBLY be retroactive.
Are you kidding? Many book publishers happily give away no-longer-published materials online anymore (Baen Books, for instance, has Baen Free Library at http://www.baen.com/library/ ) ... I've become a huge Mercedes Lackey fan after being exposed to this, and have since purchased many of her books.
It's a nerd site, dork. Read the masthead, it doesn't say "news for computer geeks". I'm surprised you weren't whining about the ISS story or the matter going at 99.9997% of the speed of light yesterday.
The site you're looking for is geek.com. It's full of bad adolesent writing, ads, unmoderated juvinile comments, and no grownups. Just the site for you!
Ray,
It is only a matter of time until the owners of coffee shops and hotels with free internet access get burned by this. There is no way for these investigators to identify the end user. Their investigation ends at the cable or DSL modem.....and the poor fool that pays the monthly bill.
It's only a matter of time until the wrong guy with deep enough pockets gets burned.....and fights back.
-ted
Yes I have spent time in a college dorm in the last 10 years. . . and there were many discussions about the fact that anyone could copy the songs.
Did I do it? No. Because it is wrong, and it is a violation of copyright laws. Did I enjoy a friends music during a party while they were there? Certainly. Did I end up being exposed to new music and eventually purchasing it? Absolutely.
Your inference that a lot of these students are violating the law is offensive in the least, and slanderous in my view.
Just because you 'think' it is happening, doesn't make it so. So please take your unfounded accusations and go away.
Since I'm tired of just saying "the RIAA":
Well, we certainly agree on the text of the constitution. I'm not qualified to debate in detail the intricacies of copyright law ...
The language is clear and there's not much to debate about. Intricacies and details that contradict such clear language are deceptive nonsense.
Your contention was that, "some form of copyright is ensconced within the US constitution, so to achieve the ideal you propose would require a successful constitutional amendment." I think we can both agree that is not true.
I don't like dealing with deceptive details, but you brought them up to avoid the simple question, "should it be against the law for people to share with their friends and family?" Laws are based on simple principles like that, which in theory are the will of those governed. Quibbling over details obscures the real issue which should direct the course of future laws.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Step 1: steal underpants
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: profit!
You are reading a sig. Cancel or allow?
A copyright owner's exclusive right to distribution is found in Secs. 109(b)(1)(A) and 109(b)(4) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C., which prohibits a person in possession of a copy of a computer program or phonorecord from disposing of possession by rental, lease, or lending (collectively referred to as "distributing" in Sec. 109(b)(4)) "for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage." Does anyone think even intentional file sharing is distribution for commercial advantage?
If a student is consciously making his/her mp3 collection available for others to download, they are violating the law. If you find that offensive, that's your problem, not mine, nor is it my fault. Don't like it? Change the law.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
"If a student is consciously making his/her mp3 collection available for others to download, they are violating the law."
what law are you talking about?
"making available" isn't one of those exclusive copyrightowners right like as far as I understand US copyrightlaw.
Please show me which paragraph the student is violating.
I just have a few questions which probably are irrelevant to all this but, what happens if you have 4 or 5 people split the cost of a few albums equally and then listen to the music between themselves on a folder available over a network connection... is this breaking the law?
The simple answer is the license to listen to the CD goes with the physical CD. The legal status of who can use it is the same as if your team bought a bicycle. The one with the current physical posession can use it and nobody else. Physical posession may be given to another. The shared copy is a legal no-no. The same for a rip on your PC or iPod. All backups and copies (including your iPod) must be either destroyed (deleted) or sent with the original. The broadcasting (shared listening by streaming, and copies including the server) is not permitted.
I hope this answers your questions. As per the Kalidascope case, a DVD rip on your own home media server is OK, but it is not to be distributed outside your home and should be encrypted in it's stored state. I don't know if that rulling is the same for a music recording, but the Apple multiple authorised computer model seems to permit it.
The truth shall set you free!
What I found offensive is the following statement:
"reality that a lot (at the very least) of these students in similar cases are doing exactly what the RIAA is accusing them of."
i.e. consciously distributing copyrighted material.
Your argument takes the form of 1. students share files on a network 2. they are doing it to let others copy music.
That is the implication that I find offensive, and you were the one who made it.
Continuing, as to whether or not either of us has a 'problem' that's another topic entirely.
And U.S. Copyright Law {Title 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq., Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2319}
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
NewYorkCountyLawyer
I'm just a law student so help me out with the procedure here. Couldn't the RIAA ignore Fonovisa since it was in a different circuit? Wouldn't RIAA need to be ordered in every district, or circuit to stop this practice until the Supreme Court ruled on this issue?
"Your argument takes the form of 1. students share files on a network 2. they are doing it to let others copy music."
You don't think that's the case for the majority of people who share music files on a network?? What you find offensive, I find is a reasonable assumption.
I'm open to your ideas, though. For what purpose do YOU think students are sharing their music files?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
They are sharing the music in order to be able to access it in another location. Like the labs, or parties, hangin' out, in the library, etc. . .
This is the reason I shared my music while I was in college, and it is still the same reason while I do it on my home network today. So I can listen to whatever I please from my own collection at work, whether I am in Minneapolis, or Denver.
I figured that's where you were going with that. I suppose then if someone just happened upon a public, wide open collection such as yours, well, shame on them for helping themselves, right?
Do you actually believe that? Are you like one of Party faithful in 1984 who "properly" believes one thing is happening despite all the evidence to the contrary staring you in the face?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
in one corner, vast sums of money, powerful government officials, and thousands of lawyers
in the other corner, millions of poor, technologically astute, highly motivated teenagers
the teenagers win hands down
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Your access point is likely broadcasting an ESSID and its integrated DHCP will also likely hand out IP addresses automatically to anyone who comes in range.
This is akin to having a welcome sign that not only tells visitors to come in your house but gives them keys and directions as well.
As for the "who is at fault over copyright violations" question, it still doesn't change a thing, but it is an attractive nuisance, even if it's not legally declared as such; you should be aware of that fact.
1. As to your argument about the WIPO treaty, the RIAA made the same stupid argument in their brief in Elektra v. Barker. When the judge called them on it, they backed down immediately. Please read the transcript.
2. Nobody disputes that "distributing" as defined in 17 USC 106(3) is actionable. Thing is, the RIAA has no evidence of any such distributing taking place.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If your car is bigger than 2,000 square feet. If you are smaller than 2,000 square feet, that subrule doesn't apply. Isn't copyright law sensible?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
But guesses about what he might have done to be in a position as described. Did not compare it to anything. I didn't take it out of the exact circumstance described.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Yup, shame on them for helping themselves. I never did it, and to my knowledge, my pals didn't do it either, we TALKED about it being an amoral thing to do, we actually talked about it.
On the same token, to directly address your original comment about 'what ifs' . . . this is where it all comes together.
Shame on ANYONE for taking advantage of the honor system at national parks, do lots of people enter without paying? Is finding me in the park evidence that I did it? You had better have some serious evidence before you accuse me of such a thing.
Shame on ANYONE for irreverently throwing their cigarette butts and candy wrappers about, do lots of people do it? Is seeing me smoking a cigarette evidence that I'll pollute?
Shame on ANYONE for taking my CD case on a hot day, when my window was rolled down, does this happen a lot? Is seeing me walk by a car with the window rolled down and a case on the seat evidence of intent?
This is where all of the 'what ifs' become wholly relevant.
I actually believe that. Yes I do.
With regard to your analogy, about me being like a party member in 1984; What the heck are you talking about? And how is that even remotely relevant to your argument?
Are you kidding?
Yes, actually, I was. Well, mostly. I'd say 90% kidding. I was shooting for the +Funny, though.
in the UK I believe it is still the case that the library pays the publisher/author a royalty when a book is borrowed. It's called a public lending right.
Sounds like a public wrong to me.
In any case, it is dangerous and foolish to compare parts of different legal systems. The systems are created with different philosophies and means to achieve their ends. Comparison invites mixing and matching to "harmonize" but what you really get is all the worst restrictions of both and a hopeless confusion of philosophy that undermines the rule of law itself. Specifically, a radical Danish law from 1941 is at odds with the purpose and structure of US copyright law. It is hotly debated in the EU itself.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I leave a copy of the compiled version in a directory that's accessible to anybody on the internet who knows where to look. When someone demands the source code, I tell him to go to hell because I'm not distributing anything. Can I get sued for violating the GPL?
Really, anyone who bothered to put their binaries onto a server would also put their source code there. I can't imagine someone going through the trouble for one and not the other. The only thing that's harder to imagine is someone using binaries from a person that's told them to go to hell.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
You would be surprised at what non-technical people are capable of doing unintentionally... Maybe they shared the 'My Documents' folder so that one of their friends could check out their paper they wrote and accidentally ended up with their music folder (which is under My Music) shared recursively.
Regardless, the RIAA needs to be honoring the rulings AGAINST them if they expect anyone to honor the rulings FOR them. Apparently they've been told they cant sue 'X number of john does to get identities' instead issuing singular ones.
Honestly I'd hope that schools would just grow a pair and wipe out who had what IP after a day or two. At the very least that would force the RIAA to work much faster and only target the biggest most chronic offenders on campuses.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
... before he really starts to get clubbed to death.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
If in a lot of cases they are doing it but it is unproven without first investigating the actions, Then the RIAA should be sending a lot more bills and a lot less court orders in order to gain the evidence.
I believe that a lot of you are getting stuck in the analogy. The point was to raise a question. How secure is secure? What constitutes offering an item for distribution.
If you really believe that having a network that is easy to connect to constitutes an invitation to all of the information available on that network then you are opening a HUGE can of worms.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
The following is a list of the record company plaintiffs in Arista v. Does 1-21:
Arista Records LLC
Warner Bros Records Inc.
Atlantic Recording Corporation
Virgin Records America, Inc.
UMG Recordings, Inc.
BMG Music, Inc.
Capitol Records, Inc.
SONY BMG Music Entertainment
Motown Record Company, LLP
Maverick Recording Company
Elektra Entertainment Group Inc.
LaFace Records LLC
Interscope Records
Please pass it along so people will know which record companies not to patronize.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
So I have all this furniture and possessions I stole from YOUR house.
.. I'm then innocent of even possession of stolen property?
I pile it up on my front yard and put up a big sign, "Here ya go, folks. Free stuff. Help yourself! Tips appreciated."
Exactly how am I not breaking the law? I'm not "distributing" your stolen property? Instead, all the people who come and take it are the sinners, not me?
And when it's all gone
It is to puke.
That's true & thank goodness noone's trying to "share" any of that cruddy music. As much as I'm anti-RIAA, it sure seems like they have a strong case here.
Like I've blogged & talked about countless times in the past, big-time record labels are pulling at straws. Lots of young, up & coming artists are bypassing them altogether in favor of digital distribution or indie labels (where they get a larger chunk of the pie AND get to maintain more creative control, to boot). I've been producing music for nearly 11 years, have tons of friends who are musicians, DJ's, radio disc jockeys & beat makers/producers. We talk about the imminent doom of big-time record labels as we know it ALL the time. It's really the recording industry's fault for pushing $15 albums that contained maybe 1-2 good songs for such a LONG time. Musicians are partially to blame as well as the recording industry's allowed them to get away with it- as an example, how many corny-ass rappers do we have making MAD duckets off of ZERO SKILLZ? Ying-Yan Twins, Chingy, 50Cent...I could go on for days (not picking on rap, as there are many talented artists in this genre, but it's by far the easiest to make an example out of).
The music industry is changing & they just don't know what to do about myspace, beatport, iTunes, snocap, cdbaby, etc. The jig is up & they're feeling the pressure & suing the pants off of everyone in a system that they created & coddled. I wish I could sue the recording industry for the 500+ albums I own where 1-2 songs out of the 20+ per album (5-10%) are barely worth a damn! Payback's a beyotch & Karma's yo' mama!
Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. -Mahatma Ghandi
Oh well, guess it's hard to resist trying to extend an analogy when you disagree...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
On what do you base your statement that "it sure seems like they have a strong case here"?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful