Slashdot Mirror
Judge Deals Blow to RIAA
jcgam69 writes "A federal judge in New Mexico has put the brakes on the RIAA's lawsuit train, at least in the US District Court for New Mexico. The case in question is part of the RIAA's campaign against file-sharing on college campuses and names "Does 1-16," who allegedly engaged in copyright infringement using the University of New Mexico's network. In a ruling issued last month but disclosed today by file-sharing attorney Ray Beckerman, Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denied the RIAA's motion to engage in discovery. This means that the RIAA will not be able to easily get subpoenas to obtain identifying information from the University."
Where the RIAA goes from here. They have managed over the last couple of years to really put the screws to people by skirting various legal and technical constraints. If this were to hold up they would have to engage in litigation more the way that normal organizations do it.
I imagine that they'll probably appeal until they get their way, but that won't be cheap for anybody. The best thing that the RIAA could do for themselves is actually follow the procedural rules, as in the long term a witch hunt only lasts as long as there are angry villagers to burn the resulting witch.
... finally a judge that is requiring the RIAA to follow the law and due process.
One more nail in the RIAA's coffin - the question is what type of backlash can others (music buyers, other "potential infringers", artists, etc) expect now that it is getting harder and harder for the RIAA to conduct "Business As Usual"?
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
It's nice to see a judge applying some common sense to these RIAA fishing expeditions. You know what would be nicer? If the universities showed some spine. Something along the lines of: "Our students pay $x thousand per year to attend our institution. They entrust us with their future, their physical well-being, and every single piece of personal information they have. We have an obligation not to allow every scum-sucker who wants a piece of them to abuse that unique relationship." (As a public institution, UNM could also add something like, "The citizens of the great state of New Mexico do not allocate a substantial portion of their money to us so that ..." etc.) Honestly, if universities didn't knuckle under as easily as they do, most of these cases would probably never make it to court -- or if they did, it would be the RIAA vs. universities instead of individual students, which would at least be something closer to a fair fight.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
... in the long term a witch hunt only lasts as long as there are angry villagers to burn the resulting witch.
Actually, witch hunts (at least the "Spanish Inquisition" kind) worked by targeting the deep-pocketed serfs and, once they were convicted, splitting their assets between the church's witch hunters and the local governmental nobles. (That's why they didn't get going very well in England - where the swag would all go to the King.)
Similarly the RIAA witchhunt will continue until either the RIAA can't profit from it or the courts (the "governmental nobles") stop allowing it.
(Remember, too, that the RIAA can profit from it by dunning its members, even if it's not making money off the accused. The members may go along with that, thinking that the witch hunt is profiting THEM some other way - such as by diverting some fraction of music users from "pirated-content" downloaders to purchasers.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So did the Judge get busted for selling cocaine to the RIAA, or did the RIAA get busted for buying it?
Unlike ISPs, which have either knuckled under or put up a very weak defense of their users, the university-as-ISP decided to put some effort into defending its students' interests against the RIAA.
For-profit ISPs have little to lose (beyond their own inconvenience) in handing over logs, and each customer represents a very small revenue stream. Bean counters might decide that failing to defend them costs the ISP little, while defending them costs more than they can ever recoup from that customer's fees.
Universities have a lot invested in each student and receive a lot from each in the form of tutition and various grant monies, along with other rewards from their success. And they have a lot to lose in other intangibles (such as security of their papers, reputation when recruiting students, staff, and faculty, etc.) So letting students swing in the wind is not just a bad idea academic-freedom wise, it's bad financially as well. (Doubly so if the RIAA's target is a faculty member, staffer, or administrator. Letting one of those get hit, or even distracted, by an RIAA suit comes right out of the University's "intellectual capital".)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You know what would be nicer? If the universities showed some spine. ... "They entrust us with their future, their physical well-being, and ... personal information ... We have an obligation not to allow every scum-sucker who wants a piece of them to abuse that unique relationship."
AIUI that's exactly what the University did, which is what got this decision from the court.
If the ISPs had shown similar spine the RIAA would have hit this wall long ago.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Indeed.
(...that was my attempt at getting some "Insightful" points)
Or perhaps the RIAA media engine wasn't trying to get this published like they do anything remotely looking like a success for them?
(And yes, they do have a media team. It actually may be the most successful part of this operation so far in terms of money earned (via sales from deterred infringers). If one could call any of it a success....)
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
Prescriptivist linguists are assholes; STFU.
Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
The mistake you're making is imagining the RIAA is some sort of independent body that record labels pay, and the RIAA is busy on their behalf doing stuff that is just done with so much as a phone call.
In fact, there is no difference between the RIAA and the record labels. They are the same. The RIAA is essentially a beard for the record labels so that you say "those bastards at the RIAA, they're suing the children". Meanwhile, the lawsuits are the creation of the record labels completely.
To put it another way, the RIAA won't sneeze without specific instructions from the record labels.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
(...that was my attempt at getting some "Insightful" points) Pthbbbt!
(What do I get for a no-word comment?)
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber" -- Plato
Perhaps we object to its mission. Or perhaps just its tactics. Either way, the objection needs to be evaluated on its own regardless of the tactics of file sharers.
Oh, if they want to play in the technical arena, they have every right to be creative. They'll lose, of course -- which is why they don't want to play in that court exclusively anymore. When they start playing in the LEGAL arena, their "creativity" is something else entirely -- it's promotion and institutionalization of injustice.
Like most RIAA apologists, you've got the order backwards. The Draconian and strange moves on the industry's part which really make it hard for everyone -- Serial Copy Management System (which killed DAT) and the DMCA -- came BEFORE Napster. Ante hoc ergo non propter hoc.
As long as the RIAA (and MPAA) have the power to make things crimes -- and they do, no question about it -- their complaining about criminal behavior is simply a demand for obedience.
1. Illegal trespassing upon a computer system ("hacking" or "cracking")
2. Doctoring the screenshot
So how is it that this "evidence" is even allowed?
If you have reasonable basis to believe someone has violated your rights, but you don't know who it is, but some third party knows who it is, you can file suit against a John Doe, and then subpoena the third party to identify the defendant. Suppose you were hit by a car, and you caught the number on the university parking pass. You can ask the university to ID the perp, but they don't have to. You have to file a John Doe case, and then issue a subpoena to the university to ID the person with that parking pass.
In an RIAA case, their investigation shows files shared from an IP with file names that appear on their face to be copyrighted songs of artists they represent. Given that evidence, they have a right to conduct discovery such as a deposition and ask you what is in those files, and ask you if you have a right to share those files (perhaps you are related to the singer and have permission... it could happen). They have a right to examine physical evidence, such as things found on your hard drive. To do that they have to know who you are, so they are allowed to compel someone else to identify you if they can.
In this case, the court took extra care to make things fair and balanced, saying the people whose information is sought to be obtained from the university, have to be allowed to fight the subpoenas first. There is nothing new here... this exact procedure is done all the time. This is a simple and fair approach, much like the judge that said the RIAA can't have the defendant's whole hard drive, but that an expert will search the drive, and produce a report, and the defendant can redact any personal information from the report before the RIAA gets it. The bottom line is that a plaintiff in court DOES have the right to discover the identity of the defendant, and to examine relevant evidence such as the defendant's relevant computer files.
Ok, I like his explanation better than mine. And certainly respect it more. ;) Thank you sir as always for sticking around and helping us legal novices make heads and tails.
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
If you f..kers put HALF as much time into discussing the SUBJECT as you put into your mental masturbations on irrelevant side topics, /. would be a HELL of a lot better place.
It's generally funny what you write, but in its core it's just simply true: People do download music without paying for it (deemed illegal currently), even people who're normally very law abiding, who wouldn't even steal an apple from the store or wouldn't even think about speeding on the freeway at 3am with nobody in sight.
The reason is that people understand laws concerning stealing apples and speeding. They make sense. When I steal an apple, I take something away from the store. When I'm speeding, I might not be able to stop my car in time to avoid the death of a person. Laws like this make sense and they are generally supported by the people. More or less, when you look at speeding and how many people don't care, but still, those laws are being upheld by the majority simply because they can understand and support those laws.
Copyright laws are very hard to understand by most people. And even harder to uphold once you understand them. It's easy to follow the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway and I'm not depriving anyone of it, because it's still there" logic. Abstract ideas like the devaluation of goods by eliminating an artificial shortage are hard to explain. And make no sense (I mean, try to explain why it's good for an economy or an individual when there's a shortage, now try to explain why it's supposedly good when you create that shortage artificially).
And laws that don't have at least the support of a sizable portion of the population have no chance to be upheld by the majority. Especially if said majority is used to the situation before the creation of the law and sees no benefit in its creation. For reference, see prohibition.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It is a blow because their whole scheme relies on being able to make this happen easily and cheaply. They need to be able to easily identify people based on very shaky evidence, and bully them in to settling. They cannot afford to have to go through a real trial in each case. Despite what they like to pretend, they are not losing millions of dollars per person, and the people they sue don't have that kind of money. Plus, if they start losing cases, that sets legal precedent and can make future cases that much harder. So for this to keep working they need things fast and easy.
A big part of that is easy discovery. They need to be able to just hand the court a list of John Doe suits with IPs and demand that ISPs hand over subscriber info with no argument. If they have to actually go through the proper proceedings it may become quickly not worth their time, especially since they are likely going to need to get better evidence beforehand.
These are not solid lawsuits we are talking here, hence why they've never actually won a suit (at least not that I am aware of). They've bullied plenty of people in to settling, and dropped suits that went to trial, but they've never actually argued in court and won. They'd do it, if it was a strong, legit case but it isn't.
Hence this IS a blow to them.
You have a file (video, music, whatever) that you didn't pay for? It's wrong...
Says who? The law? The law also said some time ago that I may buy and sell people of black skin color, that I may shoot native americans on sight, that I must not sell, own or drink liquor and many other things that I wouldn't consider too legal (or relevant) today. If you move out of the US (there are parts of the US legal system that I'm not too sure of, so let's continue with old Europe), there were laws concerning torture and how to apply it legally, homosexuality was illegal and it was (and afaik still is in the UK) high treason to burn paper money. Not to mention that according to a still existing law, the male population between the ages of 14 and 60 have to gather after mass under the observation of the clergy to fire arrows into the countryside, using a bow. I don't even own one anymore!
There've always been pointless, senseless or outright insane laws, there've always been laws that had little to no support in the general population and there have always been laws that we, looking back from our vantage point of today, deem horrible. Yet still, they existed and were valid, often also executed.
In a free country, laws rely on the support of the population for them. Laws that are not supported by the majority require a dictatorship and vast resources to be controlled to be forced upon the subjects. Many countries already fell over their laws, and the fact that their subjects did not support the laws and thus required an incredible amount of resources to be wasted on their enforcement.
Copyright laws in their current state fit into this.
Our current copyright laws enjoy no general support. Laws are generally far more successful if they do. If you know a murderer, would you turn him in? Even if it was your best buddy? He killed a human being! If you see someone shoot someone else, would you call the cops? I'm fairly sure, the majority of people would answer yes in all cases. Murder is something we do care about, something we generally consider a crime and something we want the culprit to do time (or get killed in return) for.
Now how about illegal file trading. Would you turn your buddy in? Hell, would you turn a stranger in? Do you care?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You jest, but sooner or later it's inevitable that the RIAA will take a reasonably competent lawyer (or someone who's directly related to one) to court - if they haven't already done so.
But the RIAA have this habit of dropping cases very quickly once they discover it's not going to be an easy win.
I'm reminded of an illustration that I once heard (perhaps read here on slashdot - can't recall) about software. Imagine if you paid (calm down FSF dudes, it's an illustration.) for say, an eclipse plug-in. I say that merely because I'm looking at the copy of Flex Builder 2 that I got yesterday, but perhaps it's better if we think of more expensive development tools. Anyways, for arguments sake you buy some development tool for $1000, you don't need it, but you'd rather not write all your Java in vi. (I'd call you a wuss, and go on about Real Programmers writing in blood and such, but I digress...) So, this non-essential tool that you've bought set you back a paycheck and you're gloating to your geek friend Bob making sure to milk the pricetag as much as possible hoping he'll be envious and you won't feel like a fool for having paid so much. Then Bob tells you that he's been using the same tool for a month and he downloaded it for free. You feel like a fool and suddenly your uber-expensive purchase has been devalued (I think this is marginal value, or utility value in marketing speak, but I don't know) since it's not a rare item. Bob and Steve are developing using it and are telling all their friends who are also downloading copies and now this software has absolutely no value to you.
I'm skipping a good chunk of details and the illustration doesn't hold up when comparing tools to entertainment, but I think the bottom line still carries fairly well.
That's the best I understand it, and that's so foreign to anyone who doesn't work with software on a daily basis. My mom would go "yeah, so...". Anyways, just my $.02.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
As someone who sends out PayPal payments to artists that have their music on their page for download and a "please donate if you enjoy it" button, I wouldn't see that as an issue. Yes, I'm aware that there are people who use the software/music I "buy" for free, legally or illegally (depending on the license).
I don't see it so much as devaluation, I see payment as some kind of commendation. I like your software/music/movie/whatever, and there's no other way for me to really show it (aside of the cheap "wow, good stuff" letter) than throwing a few bucks your way.
I also don't see the "bragging value" of a piece of software you bought, especially not if it's development software. I don't care if you're developing on some dated GNU C++ compiler or the ultimate enterprize team-enabled and all-plugins-included edition of the latest VCC, what I care about is what you create with it.
By the standard that there's someone who can get something for free, you must never buy anything or pay for anything. Not for your haircut, not for your oil change, not for unclogging your sink. All that and more can be had for free. Does it devalue the service? I don't think so.
Paying for something is to me more a sign that the payer thinks the receiver of the payment is "worthy" of it. That he "earned" it. And that decision should be in the customer's hand, not the seller's.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Spelling "lose" with two Os is incredibly stupid, since "lose" and "loose" are two entirely different verbs, one meaning "to suffer the deprivation of" (lose) and one meaning "to set free" (loose).
The reason slashdotters think "loose" and "lose" are synonyms is that when you're running Linux and somebody trips over the power cord, in most distros Linux will check the disks and file systems when the power comes back on. If it finds an error it will offer to fix the error while warning "you may loose data."
However, the useage in that context is (kindasorta) correct: "you may be throwing away data". Setting it free, so to speak. Of course, since the Linux kernel and many distros come from places where English isn't a first language, it's likely that the error message is in fact an error rather than deliberate.
In short, I've never seen a looser set of losers. As to this fellow's comments, I spell it "blagh".
-mcgrew