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.'"

Comments

A few questions...

[EonBlueApocalypse]

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?

Re:*Ding*

[dotHectate]

I don't distinctly remember which one it was, but I remember reading it.

Apparently a judge (most likely federal) told them that they *must* sue individuals and not large groups of people, unless those people were all involved in the alleged lawbreaking as a whole unit (ie. conspiracy) or a single occurance. Basically the judge told them they couldn't do this just because it was convenient for them. What it amounts to is that a single case with 21 "John Doe" persons = 1 filing fee (read; less money). But since each person's alleged infringement has no relation to the other's, they are *supposed* to file 21 separate cases (read: significantly more money).

Also, by doing it this way, it costs more money for the court to send out the proper notices to the participants. Money that they aren't getting from the RIAA.
*Money that we pay in our taxes.*

Re:his argument seems flawed

[Psmylie]

I think a better analogy would be: If you had a case of beer in your unlocked car and some kids opened the door and took it, would you be liable for distributing alcohol to minors? I don't know the law in this case (NAL), but it seems stupid to charge the person who bought the beer in this case. Unless, of course, they can prove that he got out of his car, looked over at a bunch of kids, and said, "Gosh, I sure hope nobody takes any of this beer out of my unlocked car, wink wink" then walked away

Re:his argument seems flawed

[dschuetz]

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.

This argument would damn every soccer-mom and burger-flipper who plugs a home computer into their cable modem without remembering to set up a firewall. I think that, reading the citations in the motion, they make a good point -- copyright infringement, they argue, requires both intent and commercial gain, not to mention actual infringement (which nobody has proven even happened).

Though I've grown weary of all the crazy analogies flung around on Slashdot of late, I feel the need to provide one of my own: You're sitting in a university library with your laptop, and the guy across the table from you gets up to search the stacks for something, leaving his folder of music CDs on the table. You grab one, stick it in your laptop, and in a couple minutes have ripped a perfect digital copy of it, before the guy even returns. Is he then criminally liable for having permitted you to infringe the copyright of that CD, because he didn't lock up the discs or take them with him? Or, worse, if you have the ability to do exactly what I just described, but don't take advantage of it, is he still liable just for having provided the opportunity for infringement?

BTW, I'm not sure this motion is on the behalf of a single defendant, but all of them (it's listed as representing Does 1-21).

Security hacking and online storage

[geek2k5]

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?

Re:his argument seems flawed

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Actually, to be exact- you left a Flash Card of some sort on the front seat of an unlocked car. You come back, the Flash Card is still there. Somebody else copied it in the mean time, but you haven't lost anything- you still have the data on your flash card. Was it your fault that the data was copied?

Of course, he might not be distributing it

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

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).