MIT Student Plans to Take on RIAA

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "MIT's online newspaper, The Tech, reports that a student named as a John Doe by the RIAA is planning to fight back against their questionable legal tactics. The anonymous student told The Tech that he is 'the victim of a fishing expedition by the RIAA,' and is 'disappointed that MIT isn't going to step up ... Other schools like Boston University and the University of Oregon have resisted RIAA subpoenas of student records more actively than MIT has, he said'. Maybe his attorneys will be able to get some assistance from some of the Harvard Law School students in Professor Nesson's 'Evidence' class, who have been assigned — as part of their coursework — the drafting of a motion to quash an RIAA subpoena."

Comments

He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[KublaiKhan]

If he's got a single audio file that doesn't have the proper paper trail back to an absolutely legit purchase, they're going to hang him out to dry...

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[MooseTick]

I disagree. If he was found having 10000+ files on his hard drive, then he would be screwed. A single file with no documentation would not be a big deal.

If that were applicable, then Wal-Mart could accuse me of being a shoplifter and sieze all my assets and I'd be liable for all the items that I don't have reciepts for that they stock.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[webmaster404]

The thing though is, when you stand up to bullies (like the *AA) generally unless they have a very very solid case, they will back down. Unless they can link his specific IP to his computer that he specifically downloaded files he can use several excuses, not to mention he can probably get the EFF on his side who have very good lawyers to stop this kind of thing. And even if he does lose, he can manage to set some precedent that will allow the EFF to attack the RIAA on a technicality.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[UnknowingFool]

I don't know much about this specific case, but what is he claiming as his defense? It's not the first time that the RIAA has targeted the wrong person.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[KublaiKhan]

A single file with no documentation would not be a big deal.

Normally, I would agree, but in this case I'm quite sure the RIAA would attempt a motion for summary dismissal of said suit (as having been made in bad faith) if they can find any evidence of what might possibly be called 'piracy'.

IANAL, of course, but it seems as though that'd be the first thing they'd look for.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[KublaiKhan]

The RIAA predates the internet (and, indeed, easy access to recording equipment by the masses). As such, even if nobody 'stole' music and suchlike, the RIAA would still exist.

You may have forgotten, but originally the RIAA was an advocacy group for the promotion of recording artists and labels, created (as I recall) almost as a sort of union, in order to have more negotiation clout when dealing with distributors and media outlets.

However, this core mission has been long since lost since they took up this ill-conceived crusade against the "dangers of piracy"--as such, the public opinion (which does matter, given that said opinion can influence legislation, amongst other things) has, largely, turned against them, reducing them to a simple dichotomy of "Us Against The Pirates!" The RIAA has, by its own actions, essentially rendered itself next to useless.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[realthing02]

So you have all the receipts for every CD record or tape you've ever purchased? Besides, you can't send the letter and then look for evidence. Usually they need to know before one brings it to litigation. Is this kid guilty? probably, although there weren't many details in the article. But you can't just send letters out to students without a good amount of evidence, and it seems that is what is being contested- that he is somehow randomly being sent a letter (lucky fish).

Unlike most slashdotters (i presume), i think he should only fight to pay a smaller fine. Does it suck? yes. do i think the punishment fits the 'crime', not at all. But fighting how the letters are handled, or who gets them is just a road block until they streamline the process to screwing the rest of us over.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[TheRealMindChild]

They WANT you to think that... (standard IANAL disclaimer)

First you have to ask... how exactly do they know that the file was a copyright infringement? Did they listen to it? Do they even represent the artist that he is supposedly committing such an atrocity? And in that wing of logic, not knowing what the file contained, couldn't it be an 'intent to commit copyright infringement' by simply listening to the file and "verifying" it? After all, what if the file was called "Tool - Loud Noises.mp3" and it is his attempt to make music from his power tools... not from Tool the band. What gives them the right to download and listen to the file and not me? And how else would you positively know that copyright infringement is taking place?

That aside, you can't reasonably expect that I (or anyone) is going to have a receipt for their CD of Michael Jackson - Thriller that they bought in 1991. With that, nothing keeps someone from going to the local flea market and picking up an old used copy (providing they didn't have the original CD, whatever the reason).

The whole setup is a scam. People HAVE to be getting paid off for this to keep going forward the way it is... especially when the RIAA legal opposition grows by the day.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[reset_button]

Maybe they can ask John's siblings Tae Kwon, Dosie, and Cookie?

[joke stolen from the show Psych, with no shame]

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, America. Guilty until proven innocent.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Free_Meson]

Unless they can link his specific IP to his computer that he specifically downloaded files he can use several excuses, not to mention he can probably get the EFF on his side who have very good lawyers to stop this kind of thing.

MIT has a class-A subnet (18.*.*.*) and used to give each student their own static IP address. If they still do that, it may be the easiest place for the *AA's to gather evidence. MIT may not "resist" as other campuses have for the reason that every student using P2P on their network is easily identifiable to the outside world.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[webmaster404]

If that is true... he is doomed. However my guess is the RIAA still can't produce enough evidence save say a BT tracker site so if he gets the EFF he still might win.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[moosesocks]

If that were applicable, then Wal-Mart could accuse me of being a shoplifter and sieze all my assets and I'd be liable for all the items that I don't have reciepts for that they stock.

I wouldn't suggest that if I were you.

(Sidenote: Wal-Mart wouldn't be that thick-skulled, given that they're noted for saving every shred of information about their customers, including transaction records (cash or otherwise), and video surveillance. If you've stolen from them, they already know about it, and have hard evidence to prove it.)

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Zordak]

What gives them the right to download and listen to the file and not me? And how else would you positively know that copyright infringement is taking place?

A discovery order.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[LandDolphin]

To my understanding the files are shared by P2P file sharign services. So you and the RIAA would both be able to download "Tool - Loud Noises.mp3" the he made with his power tools and placed on the P2P network. He is giving you the right to listen to the file by placing it on the P2P network. Where as, the RIAA did not place their song's on the P2P network, someone else did without the authorization of the RIAA.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[redcaboodle]

Good luck in choosing your bullies, then.

Real world bullies usually have good connections and the (green-backed, with the RIAA) stamina to draw you out over a long time. Bullies are mostly supported by authority because they keep people in line and people who stand up to things are not welcome.

You are much more likely to be punished for hitting the bully back then the bully is for hitting you.

I suppose MIT will just get rid of the student in question and the RIAA will starve him out unless his daddy is a bigger bully then they are.

As for a solid case - they RIAA has never had one yet and it hasn't stopped them from sueing people and even winning at least one case.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Sciros]

"Tool - Loud Noises.mp3" and it is his attempt to make music from his power tools... That sounds cool do you know a torrent or P2P server where I can get this mp3?

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[b.emile]

The RIAA was originally created to make sure everyone's vinyl would play correctly. It's called the RIAA curve, created to keep RCA from equalizing differently than Columbia, so your records would sound good. It also oversaw later electronic recording formats. It was only later that it became a sort of union, and then, even later, a sort of police organization, as you stated.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Anonymous Psychopath]

You'd still have to prove that his computer was using that address at a specific time, and that it cannot be reasonably argued that someone else couldn't have used that address for a time. Maybe if they logged the MAC address at the first router (although MAC addresses can be easily changed, too).

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[KublaiKhan]

Ah, righto, I stand corrected. Completely forgot that bit.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Free_Meson]

If that is true... he is doomed. However my guess is the RIAA still can't produce enough evidence save say a BT tracker site so if he gets the EFF he still might win.

Bittorrent tells you the IP addresses of your peers. I don't know what other information is available, but I would assume that it is possible to tell whether any particular member of a torrent is uploading. If he was uploading, he's boned.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[croddy]

Your history is not quite right. You may be thinking of the AFM. The RIAA -- if you can believe it -- was originally formed as an oversight body for standardized equalization curves for record mastering. Prior to the RIAA curve, different labels used different EQ curves, which were of course most compatible only with record players made by those companies or their affiliates. The RIAA actually grew out of a successful attempt to make music recordings portable from one manufacturer's players to another!! It is depressing and backwards that their recent history has been one of fighting that same principle of portability with every tool at their disposal.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[glindsey]

I disagree. If he was found having 10000+ files on his hard drive, then he would be screwed. A single file with no documentation would not be a big deal.

If that were applicable, then Wal-Mart could accuse me of being a shoplifter and sieze all my assets and I'd be liable for all the items that I don't have reciepts for that they stock. If Wal-Mart had the kind of lobbyists and owned as many congresspeople as the RIAA does, you would be liable.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[webmaster404]

But who is to say that the RIAA has solid evidence? They aren't used to people fighting back effectively, if they can only prove that he went to a specific site, there is lack of evidence. The RIAA has never made very solid cases and if he wins this he could inspire others to do the same.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Nimrodel]

MIT doesn't automatically give everyone static IPs anymore, although you can get several of them if you want. What happens now is that the first time you try to use your computer to log onto the internet at MIT, you have to first register your mac address. You can't access the internet unless your mac address has been registered. Once you've done that, whenever you connect you're given a random IP via dhcp. So, 'technically' they can attach a name to IP because you've registered your mac address, but it's entirely possible to spoof that.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[omnipresentbob]

Precisely. It's the idea of innocent until proven guilty. They have to prove that you are guilty. There could be any number of reasons why you don't have the "paper trail" of music on your computer (eg, you went off to college in a different country and you didn't want to ship several hundred CDs; they were stolen, etc). What that means is that there's not a concrete proof that the music files were stolen.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[morari]

After all, what if the file was called "Tool - Loud Noises.mp3" and it is his attempt to make music from his power tools... not from Tool the band. Always fun stuff! I'm particularly fond of my nailgun. Few things shout "industrial metal" like a depressurizing nailgun going along to the beat. That said, I was disappointed that my chainsaw just sounds like a dirt bike later when listening to the recordings. It's a pretty big chainsaw even. :\

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[bug1]

'piracy' is not a legal term (unless talking about boats)

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've stolen from them, they already know about it, and have hard evidence to prove it.

Bullshit! I have a friend who used to, after a hard night at the bar, go to Wal-Mart and take things off of the shelves and throw them down the aisles, or steal them, and no one ever even approached him.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[cosminn]

Incorrect. RIAA needs to prove he's guilty, he doesn't have to prove he's innocent.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[matazar]

Yeah we've all learned by now that the RIAA never has much evidance in cases.
They know most people can't afford to go to court and will just pay up.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Compholio]

So, 'technically' they can attach a name to IP because you've registered your mac address, but it's entirely possible to spoof that.

We want the person associated with DE:AD:CA:FE:BA:BE who was sharing files at 3:03 AM on March the 3rd, 2003!

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Benaiah]

No, if the RIAA thinks that you have a case, they will drop theirs.
Precisely because they don't want to set a precedent that their methods are bullshit and constitute criminal harassment on a massive scale. So if they drop every case they will lose, and fight the few they can win, they set a precedent that what they are doing is right and the courts support them. And in the mean time they send thousands more letters asking people for a few grand to continue the fight or they will be next. Paying up doesn't even grant you immunity from future suits.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Lost Engineer]

Unless they find the shared files on his hard drive, in which case he'd have to argue someone else was using the computer, but he might still be liable.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[moxley]

They work more on behalf of the labels rather than the artists - and the labels fuck the artists more than some guy who downloads 100,000 songs he never would have purchased in the first place if he couldn't obtain them easily via technology. He'd likely only have 50,000 and have spent many hours ripping CDs.

Even if digital distribution and mp3s/flacs etc didn't exist, the internet is such a powerful tool for organizing that people would create mail share/trade trees and do it like that (the way deadheads and live music trades who are anal about lossless quality were doing it prior to wide broadband adoption and FLAC/SHN).

People have always shared music. People will always share music. If the major lables die a slow death (which, by the way, isn't happening yet though they sure would like you to believe it is) that will probably be beneficial - they fuck art up 9 times out of 10.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Anonymous Coward]

>He is giving you the right to listen to the file by placing it on the P2P network. Where as, the RIAA did not place their song's on the P2P network, someone else did without the authorization of the RIAA.

Right, so how am I supposed to know that? I can't even be sure what the file is before I download it, except that it (possibly) is described by the title, assuming that tells me anything. It certainly doesn't tell me who put it on the network or whether the copyright owner authorized that.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[mlwmohawk]

I disagree. If he was found having 10000+ files on his hard drive, then he would be screwed.

An important point:

You do not need to prove ownership of the files. It is not illegal or wrong to have the copies, it is illegal to distribute copyrighted material.

They have to prove you distributed the works. There is already precedent that RIAA's argument of "merely making available" is not sufficient.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[stony3k]

I wish I could mod this "Insightful but depressing".

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that the best thing to do here is to leave my MAC address unregistered, and then pick a random unused static IP address. Sure, they can find the IP, but there's nothing that easily links the IP to my identity. If you don't use DHCP, you can connect without registering the MAC address.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Kokuyo]

Also even if they knew that files had been traded over a NIC with his MAC... so what? They'd still have to prove that it was him doing it. Technically, he could have attached a WiFi router and registered that MAC adress and then it could have been anyone doing the downloading.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Dragonslicer]

Incorrect. RIAA needs to prove he's guilty, he doesn't have to prove he's innocent. Incorrect. The company bringing the case to court (remember, the RIAA doesn't sue people, the recording companies do) has to show that it's more likely than not that he did what the company claims he did, and he has to show that it's more likely than not that he didn't do what the company claims he did. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies to criminal cases.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[cbiltcliffe]

11:0T:C0:FF:EE:5A

Hot Coffee, San Andreas. :)

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called the RIAA curve, created to keep RCA from equalizing differently than Columbia, so your records would sound good.

It's a pity they gave up on that so soon. But I guess litigation pays better.

Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts

[Anonymous Coward]

you fail at hex.

Re:Latin for Slashfags

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I always thought those AC, first post, venom filled comments were from low brow AssHats. Good to see some nice hate being spewed from learned cowards as well.

Guilty till proven innocent?

[Iberian]

Given the RIAA guilty until proven innocent "John Doe" should be able to present what could be a landmark case against the RIAA. Though IANAL sticking to that basic premise would seem to be the most effective way to nullify the MAFIAA.

Re:Guilty till proven innocent?

[Mitreya]

Given the RIAA guilty until proven innocent "John Doe" should be able to present what could be a landmark case against the RIAA. Though IANAL sticking to that basic premise would seem to be the most effective way to nullify the MAFIAA.

Bah, few people here are lawyers, but even a layman like me has learned that RIAA files civil lawsuits. In a civil lawsuit there is no "guilty until proven innocent" or "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof is to show 51% likelihood of one party being right (kinda like a speeding ticket decision made by a judge. There's no assumption you're innocent, he goes by who seems more credible).

Re:Guilty till proven innocent?

[jedidiah]

It doesn't matter if it's a civil case or a criminal one. The accusing party has the burden of proof.

Re:Guilty till proven innocent?

[Anonymous Coward]

The current inflation suggests that IANAL should become obsole and another term would be better, IAALR (I Am A Lawyer Really)

Re:Guilty till proven innocent?

[Anonymous Coward]

The accusing party has the burden of proof.

That's incorrect. There's no burden of proof on either party because nothing has to be proved. Both parties have to show that the "preponderance of the evidence" supports their claim. There is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" in civil lawsuits.

Basically, for each claim or counter claim being heard, the party filing the claim only needs to show that the claim is more likely true than false and the party the claim was filed against needs to show that the claim is more likely false than true.

Re:Guilty till proven innocent?

[Lost Engineer]

There's still a burden of proof. The plaintiff has to prove that there was harm done and the defendant is liable. If no evidence can be presented by either side the suit is dismissed. Imagine my car is graffitied. If I take John Doe to court I have to provide some evidence that it was his punk minor child that did the damage. If I can't, he's under no obligation to provide an alibi. IIRC, the term burden of proof is not used, however.

Re:Guilty till proven innocent?

[Lewrker]

Have you noticed it's an anagram of "A LIAR" ?

Re:Guilty till proven innocent?

[Crazy_CorranH]

I prefer Lawyer, I Am, Really. (LIAR)

Re:Guilty till proven innocent?

[squiggleslash]

Well, you have to show it's most probable his punk minor child that did the damage.

The music industry is going through a process where they determine that a particular computer is advertising that it's distributing, without authorization, various files that are copyrighted by parties represented by the industry. The music industry retrieves the IP address of that computer, and passes it on to the ISP responsible for that IP address, obtaining the details of who owns the account that was assigned that IP address at that particular point. The music industry then says "Well, it's almost certain that the person performing the copyright violation is either the owner of that account, or someone known to the owner. If it's not the owner, the owner should find it easy to prove it wasn't him or her, so we can legitimately at this point file a lawsuit against that named person."

Is it foolproof? Well, obviously not. It might be that someone hacked the account, though that's improbable - even the "OMG! You shouldn't leave your WAP open, someone might run Kazaa and you'll get the blame!" argument doesn't generally fly because it's rarely the case that the WAP provides you with a IP address that can be directly connected to from outside. And, of course, it might be the ISP made a mistake, though again that's unlikely.

The music industry is doing what it's supposed to be doing - showing it's probable it was the owner of the account identified by the ISP that was violating copyright. The person controlled the account (and, in many senses, is responsible for it), and if it was someone they let use the account, why are they refusing to identify the real guilty party? If they were hacked, why is there no evidence? Showing damages isn't as complex as you might think, as even the act of copying music to your hard drive and then (in good faith) advertising that it's available to anyone who wants to make a copy clearly undermines a copyright holder's ability to sell their music, and as such congress has enacted copyright laws that have statutory damages.

Even if this were a criminal case, the burden of proof would be lower than you might think. "The dog ate the evidence" is not going to fly in many courts.

Which means ultimately if you want to fight a music industry lawsuit, you do, actually, have to show a few things. If you're on the receiving end of the lawsuit, and you're genuinely bewildered, you can:

1. Obtain information from your ISP giving more information on how your account was tied to the copyright violation. Maybe they made a mistake, or perhaps the telephone line (heh) used was not tied to you in any way.

2. Perhaps you left your WAP open, in which case it should be possible to determine whether it's possible to actually use a guest computer to run a file distributor program. It probably isn't, but if it is, you at least have something to go on.

3. See if your computer has been hacked. It probably hasn't been, as there's no earthly reason to plant file distributor clients on innocent people's computers.

4. Have an extremely frank chat with the other people who you know have used your account.

My money is that if you really didn't do it, option 4 is almost certainly going to be the method by which you find out what really happened, and it will give you real options for defending yourself, rather than certain idiotic defenses like "Innocent by reason of single motherhood".

Re:Guilty till proven innocent?

[HiThere]

I can accept that in some cases that is true. In other cases, however, they were clearly wrong, and clearly had no creditable evidence. Yet they pursued the case anyway just because they figured the person couldn't defend themselves. As such, we I on a jury I would automatically vote against them. They have repeatedly knowingly abused the court system without any penalty, and they deserve a penalty.

Actually, my feeling is that the penalty the RIAA & MPAA deserve it to have their corporate charter stripped, their lawyers licenses revoked, and their personal fortunes confiscated. No way I could impose that, of course, but anything less than that happening to them I count as less than fair. This isn't all because of the cases they've filed. Some of it is because of cases that they haven't filed. (Like against the children of a record company exec.) And much to most of it is because of the way they bought congress-folk to write these unjust laws. (The laws are so unjust that even were they, themselves, guiltless, I'd have a great deal of trouble voting to accept that the laws should be enforced.)

I'm sure they have excuses. Their excuses don't excuse their own actions.

Re:Guilty till proven innocent?

[jp10558]

I'm sorry, we see this frequently, and it's just not true. I'll address each point:
1. Obtain information from your ISP giving more information on how your account was tied to the copyright violation. Maybe they made a mistake, or perhaps the telephone line (heh) used was not tied to you in any way.

Well, we've already had *several* highly publicized ISP errors in this process. ISPs have LOTS of old info, telephone companies often have worse info. At least several years ago when I worked for a contractor for one, often we'd have "open" accounts for people who migrated their number YEARS ago. I mean, something like one every other day. That's thousands and thousands open...

2. Perhaps you left your WAP open, in which case it should be possible to determine whether it's possible to actually use a guest computer to run a file distributor program. It probably isn't, but if it is, you at least have something to go on.

Why wouldn't it be possible? Hell, did you not read the several recent reports of websites using flash to open ports in routers via UPnP, and several Linksys and other popular brands in certain models you *can't even turn it off*! I don't know specifically about bittorrent, but it's certainly possible to distribute files if you can connect to "supernodes" so you can "push" the files past your router. You might also configure various DMZs incorrectly.

3. See if your computer has been hacked. It probably hasn't been, as there's no earthly reason to plant file distributor clients on innocent people's computers.

I'm close to being rude. Of course there is a reason to do this. It depends on lots of factors, but if you were running an FTP dumpsite, why would't you put the files on somebody else's computer and network connections? Especially if they have FIOS or other highspeed? Spammers use botnets, might not scriptkiddies do the same for their warez?

Also, what about TOR?

4. Have an extremely frank chat with the other people who you know have used your account.
Sure, this might help. This will depend on a lot of factors, but it's entirely possible it's a friend of your kid's laptop that got caught one day. I mean, is the RIAA actually looking for a pattern of sharing, or is it just, one time there were files on that IP? How many people are going to be doing some sort of policy based checks of every laptop that might walk through their house and so and so want's to check GMAIL?

The final issue with this whole thing is let's say it's #4. You still end up going to court, spending money trying to prove it's friend Pirate, and then the **AA tries to pin you with some liability anyway.

is this guy totally innocent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the story doesnt make any mention of it. If he had never downloaded copyrighted content, you would have thought he'd have mentioned this, and be happy to be identified. If not, then hey... the guy has been caught breaking the law knowingly so tough shit. The RIAA had his IP address, and traced him. This is like a burglar complaining that the cops investigated a burglary and traced the goods to his house.
Only someone 100% innocent who never downloaded copyrighted material would be advised to fight this in court. the last person to feign innocence got her ass kicked, and rightly so.

Re:is this guy totally innocent?

[Spacepup]

This is like a burglar complaining that the cops investigated a burglary and traced the goods to his house. Actually it's more like the neighborhood association looking through your window at your stereo and cd collection and deciding there is no way you could have bought so you must be guilty of theft.

Re:is this guy totally innocent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's more like the neighborhood association looking through your window at your stereo and cd collection and deciding there is no way you could have bought so you must be guilty of theft and 75% of the time it's true.

Fixed it for you.

Re:is this guy totally innocent?

[CSMatt]

If this guy is smart enough and has enough potential to even get accepted by an institution as prestigious as MIT, then surely he would have known to cover his tracks if he was willfully infringing.

Re:is this guy totally innocent?

[xtracto]

Can someone make a car analogy please?

Re:is this guy totally innocent?

[kaizokuace]

Its like this: The RIAA is a company that sells spinner hubcaps which are totally gay. They drive by your house and see that you have rims with spinners so they decide you robbed them, even though your spinners are cold hard ali 20's probably with LEDs on them too. So they pull out their mac-10's and drop like 5 magazines on your car, cuz they are gangstas literally.

Legal defense fund?

[Anonymous Meoward]

If this guy has a legitimate legal defense fund, I'd throw a few bucks his way.

(I won't throw money at "John Doe" though. X's bass player probably has enough cash as it is... )

Re:Legal defense fund?

[oztemprom]

Link from tfa???: https://www.fsf.org/associate/riaa

Mitch Hedberg taught me everything I need to know

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

I wasn't aware of a legal requirement for showing where you bought... well, just about anything short of firearms.


...and doughnuts!

"I bought a doughnut and they gave me a receipt for the doughtnut... I don't need a receipt for the doughnut. I give you money and you give me the doughnut, end of transaction. We don't need to bring ink and paper into this. I can't imagine a scenario that I would have to prove that I bought a doughnut. To some skeptical friend, 'Don't even act like I didn't get that doughnut, I've got the documentation right here... It's in my file at home. ...Under "D".'"

Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[Weaselmancer]

The RIAA had his IP address, and traced him. This is like a burglar complaining that the cops investigated a burglary and traced the goods to his house.

This is an example of the RIAA and their tactics, and of what they hope to achieve.

They have convinced this guy that they are the cops. They are NOT.

Please everyone - do your best to not further their agenda by buying into their spin. They are not the cops. People who infringe on copyright are not pirates. Committing copyright violation is not theft.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[s20451]

Committing copyright violation is not theft.

But it is illegal.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[faedle]

So is jaywalking, however in the grand scheme of things is a minor offense that people engage in every day that rarely results in any legal repercussions.

So, your point is.. what, exactly?

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[Fieryphoenix]

Unlawful, actually. Not illegal.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, jaywalkers should be fined a sum that would ruin their life financially.

That way they'll take notice of walking across streets... which they're living on.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[Weaselmancer]

Not the argument I'm making.

My point is that theft and copyright violation are not the same thing, as the RIAA would have you believe. Why would the RIAA push this particular viewpoint? Because it's easy to despise a thief, that's why. But legally, a copyright violator is something different. So they're trying to spin it so that lawmakers and juries will look at copyright violators and SEE thieves. It helps their agenda to do this.

But they're not the same thing or we wouldn't need a law about copyright violation on the books, seeing as how we already have one there for theft.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[LandDolphin]

Thinking that he was pointing out that while it is not "theft", it is still an Illegal activity. There are so many differences between jaywalking and copy right infringement that any comparison is stretched way to far, Apples and Oranges.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[HopeOS]

Illegal is what the People decide it is. The People may change their mind. It's happened before. -Hope

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the diff?

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[jedidiah]

Sure. Jaywalking can actually HURT someone.

Copyright infringement just gives control freaks anxiety attacks.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[notamisfit]

Committimg copyright violation is not *larceny*. It's still the acquisition of a value the offending party did nothing to create and offered nothing in trade for. I'll give you "piracy" though.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[TheSkyIsPurple]

Do you really think that if you got everyone on the planet to say "infringing copyright" instead of "theft" it would change anything?

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[westlake]

Why would the RIAA push this particular viewpoint? Because it's easy to despise a thief

Turn the question around.

Why does the Geek shy like a virgin from an association of words and ideas that was current when the Black Flag still flew over the Caribbean?

It is pathetic and futile to argue that the word "thief" must given the same meaning in casual usage as it has in criminal law. The geek must know in his heart that will have no more success here than he has had in reclaiming words like "hacker."

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[Weaselmancer]

Turn it around again.

If we could convince the entire world to call all people who commit copyright violation "Fluffy Marshmallow Bunny Liberator of Ideas", wouldn't you think that a senator would have a hard time making a draconian law against that?

Words mean things. The words you choose matter. Ask anyone in advertising if I'm right.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still the acquisition of a value the offending party did nothing to create

The most succinct definition of modern capitalism I've ever seen.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[gfogus]

His point is that, while 'everyone' seems to think that copying information is the same as stealing that information. This same group of individuals do not understand the difference between stealing hard drives, "cutting and pasting" the content (such that the original is destroyed), and copying the file from one persons hard disk to another's.

In reality, file sharing is the equivalent to, for a car example, a ford owner collaborating with a non ford owner; helping him to make a copy of the owner's ford. In the car example, this is a difficult task to accomplish, as most people do not have the tools to copy a ford. It happens that in the computer world the copying of a file is a task of trivial effort.

By informing us that it is illegal for the populace to be copying these files between hard disks, we are reminded that the law makers are among the group of individuals who lack the understanding outlined in my first paragraph.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that if you got everyone on the planet to say "infringing copyright" instead of "theft" it would change anything?

Yeah, it would. In reverse, how would you like it if, every time a jaywalker caused a semi from out of state to use its brakes, they tried to prosecute him for "interfering with interstate commerce"?

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

If it doesn't matter, then why use the wrong term?

It's because it DOES matter and the music executives want to skew public perception in their favor by associating something innocuous, copyright infringement, with something we all despise: theft.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[Trogre]

Committing copyright violation is not theft.

Okay, but then neither is "identity theft", or "stealing secrets".

In these three cases no one is being deprived of anything. Except, arguably:

• Your identity - if someone else is using it then it's less unique to you (less of an "identity")
  
• A secret - someone else knowing it makes it less of a secret.
  
  and finally:
  
• Valuable data - the more people that own it without paying, the less value it has in a market where you want to charge for it.
  

So which is it? All or none of the above are theft?

(I'm not trying to tell you which, I'm asking)

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[TheSkyIsPurple]

We are not lawyers in court or writing court documents, the word steal has multiple meanings, and by context you can work out the point of the conversation:

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

This definition doesn't explicitly say that stealing removes an object from the owner's use, merely that you took something without permission.
(ie, making a copy is taking a copy, and if you were not authorized to make that copy you are stealing it)
>1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

This definition fits nicely with the vernacular usage that you're decrying
>2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

The difference is that the interstate commerce thing sounds ridiculous to "normal" people that are just trying to exchange ideas.
When someone else gets something for free that you had to pay for, that fits enough of the definition of theft for people to be able to grasp onto.

By nitpicking about specific terms, you detract from the discussion about what really matters, and the real argument suffers: Sure RIAA has a right to investigate these things, but no cheating guys... (sorry if my use of the word cheating collides with a usage of the word you don't approve of) They shouldn't have the right to destroy a person's life with just an accusation that has no real basis. They should not be allowed to extort money from you simply because you can't afford to defend yourself. (The burden's are well beyond proportion to the alleged "crime" or tort)

Also, when you focus on the "theft" definition, you reduce the problem to one of two competing concerns:
1. Rich artists making millions off of presumably little work, so it's OK to "take from" them without compensation
2. Empathy with "If I did a song I'd want to get paid for it"
Neither of them deals with the inherent unfairness of the copyright system, nor with RIAA's evil methods of dealing with it.

Once people get used to "Corporations are abusing unfair laws and abusing the court system in order to destroy people just like you", the nuances of terminology make much more sense to talk about.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>If it doesn't matter, then why use the wrong term?
> It's because it DOES matter

No, it's because the word "steal" carries enough meaning to fit with what is being talked about.

(from another post)
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

This definition doesn't explicitly say that stealing removes an object from the owner's use, merely that you took something without permission.
(ie, making a copy is taking a copy, and if you were not authorized to make that copy you are stealing it)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

This definition fits nicely with the vernacular usage that you're decrying
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

>associating something innocuous, copyright infringement, with something we all despise: theft.

Copyright infringement is not innocuous as far as I've ever heard... multimillion dollar lawsuits are fought over years when one company infringes another's copyrights. It's serious business
We don't all despise theft either: If I'm starving, I feel just fine stealing bread. Stealing a candy bar from a billionaire just doesn't compare to stealing one from a child.

Let the word stand, and associate what they're doing: extortion, destroying people entire lives over a $1.99 song, etc.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[kaizokuace]

So is sodomy in some states, but does anyone care?

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[kaizokuace]

I would say that it is a grey area for all of those. And you can't have everything all or none or we end up with people like Bush saying you are with us or you are a terrorist. I am under the belief that copyright infringement is wrong and should be punished but not to the extent that the RIAA and the like currently exercise also copyright should be enforced for like 10 years only, not like what is it now 120 years? There is no proof showing that people sharing and dling music files takes from sales. There is data to suggest that it actually helps the industry in people's exposure to music (I was reading BMI's sales growth and it continually goes up). Their tactics are just a bunch of FUD.
As for identity theft I would say that is a criminal offense as you are literally doing it to steal another person's money or assets. As it is a criminal offense to impersonate a police officer it would be criminal to steal another person's identity.
Stealing secrets is also difficult. For example in the case of a trade secret stealing a recipe for example gives you the ability to copy the food or drink and generate sales based on work you did not do to develop a product. You could jump at saying that stealing that info is the same as dling a song but you aren't going to be convicted of stealing the trade secret until you try to produce and sell that product. Having the info doesn't do any damage. With songs it's just file sharing and passing of information. Its not the crime of piracy until you start to sell that music that you acquired without paying for a license or whatever. Anyway this subject can be argued for a long time. Basically with copyright I am sticking to the idea that everyone is coming at it from the wrong angle. The copyright laws need to change to lowering the amount of time it is enforcible to 10 years or something short like that. This is the source of the problem as the temporary monopoly on an IP hurts the citizenry and hence the culture if it is not released to public domain after a short time.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[cyphercell]

So, you think untraceable might be propaganda? Cause that's what I keep thinking every time I see the commercial.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[novakyu]

It is pathetic and futile to argue that the word "thief" must given the same meaning in casual usage as it has in criminal law. Perhaps you should define what "thief" means, in casual usage, then. Weaselmancer has the right idea in defining "thief" as it is defined in the criminal law regarding the natural property. At least we have something concrete to talk about.

If you then just blur the word as "thief in casual usage", without defining or even attempting describe consistently what it means, the word itself means as much as "Dieb" or "doduk", at least for the purpose of this thread.

Suggest a reasonable definition for "thief" in casual usage today (and you cannot add "copyright infringer" as a special condition---you are of course right to try and define "thief" so that it includes "copyright infringer", but that should come out of a general principle, so that one can apply it to a situation that does not involve copyrights), then we can talk.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[ScottForbes]

The other key difference between crimes and torts ("tort" is the legal term for copyright violation, breach of contract, etc.) is the question of who pays to prosecute the offender. Taxpayers (i.e., you) foot the bill for prosecuting crimes; in principle, a crime is an offense against society as a whole - a public offense - so the government handles the prosecution. That's why criminal cases are "The People vs. So-and-So" and civil litigation isn't.

A tort is a private offense: If you breach the terms of your lease, your landlord is much, much more interested in pursuing legal action than anyone else is. Violating someone's copyright is a tort, not a crime - as the original poster says - and the RIAA's has a financial interest in muddying the waters: If copyright violation is a crime, then it's you who gets stuck with the tab for what should be the RIAA's private legal expenses.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[MattskEE]

In a way it would be better for the common file sharing to be treated as a thief. They would likely pay a small fine in court, maybe get probation or community service, and be on their way. If they were a repeat offender or an existing criminal record, then maybe they'd get a short jail sentence. There is no way that they would be fined a whopping $144,000.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[beren12]

This definition doesn't explicitly say that stealing removes an object from the owner's use, merely that you took something without permission. (ie, making a copy is taking a copy, and if you were not authorized to make that copy you are stealing it)

>1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force This definition fits nicely with the vernacular usage that you're decrying

>2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

Sorry, you still have it confused. I can take a copy of a cd off the store shelf. That is stealing. If I use a computer to make a copy, well, I didn't take something. I made something; a copy, in fact, leaving the original untouched and as it was

As for the 2nd definition, it refers to plagiarism. It is illegal for me to take a song you have written and claim that I wrote it.

The law does forbid me to use someone else's exact wording/music tune/etc. for a certain number of years, but it's is not theft, it is not stealing. If it was, many people would be brought up on felony charges for grand larceny.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[pwnies]

Depends where you live. I used to live in Southern California, where everyone jaywalked. It was an acceptable thing. However I moved to Hawaii a few months ago, and was shocked because the cops here take Jaywalking very seriously. I see about one person a day getting a jaywalking ticket here (which in my opinion is ridiculous, and is just because the cops are too lazy to catch other criminals.)
Although, I still think your analogy is still accurate. In that the RIAA are going after the easy "criminals" so that they don't have to worry about doing their job correctly.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[TheSkyIsPurple]

It depends on perspective.

Towards the first definition:
I can copy someone else's arrangement of bits, and all I'm doing is pushing electrons around... electrons that I paid to be able to manipulate. The fact that those electrons represent something doesn't matter apparently.

So, taking that approach to #2, plagiarism online can't exist either, since the ideas were never affected. The original post is still there, so my copying of it wouldn't cause any harm.

Since plagiarism does exist and is rightly forbidden, obviously the ideas present in the arrangements of electrons mean something, and exist as something on their own to be protected (ala Intellectual Property)

As I said before, we're not in court arguing cases, we're writing English.
You know what the writer meant, the writer knew what he meant, and you both understood the same thing about the situation.
The writing did it's job.

The sky is blue... no, it's cerulean mixed with tufts of white... well, the portion of sky covering x arc consists of the following spectrum of colors ...
(All three descriptions have their place, but normally when people describe the color of the sky they're not planning to spectrally analyze its composition)
Any way you describe it, we know it's a nice day out, there's no need to get into pedantics.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong

[asretfroodle]

Let the word stand, and associate what they're doing: extortion, destroying people entire lives over a $1.99 song, etc.

No. Let's use a more appropriate term instead and save the dramatics for less reasoned discourse.

1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

This definition fits nicely with the vernacular usage that you're decrying

The only thing that copyright infringement can take is potential customers. Those potential customers do not belong to anyone.

2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment

This depends on your definition of appropriate, but would apply more accurately to any clients of the copyright infringer than to the copyright infringer themselves. The person infringing the copyright may have obtained their material legitimately, is unlikely to exclude others from making use of the works, and is unlikely to be passing off the works as their own.

Copyright infringement is a serious matter. There is no need to conflate it with another entirely inappropriate branch of law.

Sue MIT

[Nom du Keyboard]

Sue MIT for not protecting your student records properly. You can use that settlement money to pay off the RIAA.

Re:Sue MIT

[UdoKeir]

He could probably sue them for making false statements about the law.

In an Oct. 4 statement, Dean for Student Life Larry G. Benedict and Jerrold M. Grochow '68, vice president for Information Services & Technology, said, "Unauthorized downloading and sharing of copyrighted files is illegal

Downloading is not illegal. Sharing (or publishing) a copyrighted work without authorisation is illegal.

MIT repeats this falsehood on their copyright website: http://web.mit.edu/ist/topics/security/copyright/

The website they link to (presumably a **AA front) also tries to muddy the waters. But in the legal details it mentions nothing about downloading being illegal: http://www.campusdownloading.com/download.htm So: using a protocol that downloads and uploads at the same time (eg. BitTorrent) to obtain copyrighted works would be illegal. Receiving an email containing such works would not.

Re:Sue MIT

[Sancho]

Assuming your statements were true, most students don't understand that if they're downloading, they're probably uploading, too.

But your statements aren't true. Making a copy of a copyrighted work violates copyright law. Pure downloaders almost never get caught, which I suspect is the reason for this fallacious belief.

Now, that said, my personal belief is that downloading should never be illegal, primarily because it's virtually impossible to know for sure that you're downloading from a legitimate source. Hulu.com? How do I know that they're legit? eDonkey? Maybe the band released their album on there.

Re:Sue MIT

[UdoKeir]

So you're saying if I make a backup of my CDs I'm breaking the law, or if I photocopy a page out of one of my books? Sorry dude, that isn't illegal. Neither is receiving a copied CD from a friend, or an email from with a song that friend.

If you can cite the specific law that states that receiving a copy of a copyrighted work is illegal, I'll retract the comment.

Re:Sue MIT

[Sancho]

So you're saying if I make a backup of my CDs I'm breaking the law, or if I photocopy a page out of one of my books? These are covered under special exemptions to copyright law known as fair use. Fair use is an affirmative defense, meaning that the copyright holder can bring you to court, show that you have an unauthorized copy of their work, and then you explain how it got there. If the judge agrees that the copy was fair use, he will dismiss the case.

This website appears to suggest that mere possession of an unauthorized copy may cause you to be liable for copyright infringement:

Your possession of the unauthorized copy, no matter how brief, still constitutes an infringing act. If the copyright holder happens to catch you with unlawful copies of their works on your hard drive, deleting it won't make a lawsuit go away should they decide to take legal action. Now that said, copyright violation rulings are extremely subjective on the part of the judge. If your friend e-mailed you a copy just as the RIAA came barging in your door to search your computer, you probably wouldn't be found liable for that copy. But copyright law is pretty clear on what constitutes copyright violation, and the most common defense--fair use--hasn't been tested in the US regarding "just downloading."

Re:Sue MIT

[iabervon]

As far as I know, MIT hasn't given any information to the RIAA. The RIAA sent them a bunch of documents to pass on the users of particular addresses, and MIT did so without telling the RIAA who they passes the documents on to. This actually seems like the thing that MIT could do that could hurt the RIAA the worst, since it means that people are receiving these letters who the RIAA hasn't gotten any sort of background information on. It's only a matter of time before the RIAA accidentally threatens somebody they really shouldn't threaten if they send threatening letters blind like that. If MIT refused to pass on the letters, the RIAA would subpoena records, and likely find out who they were dealing with before they'd done anything objectionable, and they'd probably just forget about anyone who didn't look like a good prospect.

Re:Sue MIT

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The question is not about passing on letters to the students. The RIAA is bringing a formal court proceeding against MIT "John Does", seeking an ex parte order to get their confidential information. It will try to get the order, and the subpoena, before the students or MIT even know the proceeding has been brought. MIT will then receive a court order directing it to turn over the information. The RIAA, once it gets the information from MIT, will then withdraw the case, leaving no opportunity for an appeal.

Re:Sue MIT

[UdoKeir]

OK, so you've made things up, referenced some guy on the internet, and not cited any relevant statutes.

I don't know where you got your law degree from, but you may want to ask for a refund.

Be Smart About This

[Nom du Keyboard]

It will be easier for the student to win this case if he was smart enough not to use his own name, nickname, myspace page name, or personal e-mail address name as his [name]@kazaa.com file sharing nick.

Instead, use the name of the jock down the hall that you hate anyway.

Re:Be Smart About This

[Frosty Piss]

It will be easier for the student to win this case if he was smart enough not to use his own name, nickname, myspace page name, or personal e-mail address name as his [name]@kazaa.com file sharing nick.

This kind of implies that you think he's actually "guilty", has something to hide. Is this what you're saying?

Re:Be Smart About This

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, use the name of the jock down the hall that you hate anyway.

Uh, this is MIT so ah, no jocks.

Re:Be Smart About This

[Anakron]

Instead, use the name of the jock down the hall that you hate anyway. Maybe he did. This would be the "jock" saying it wasn't him.

Re:Be Smart About This

[kaizokuace]

He could setup the jock and then use the jock as RIAA bait to prove that their methods for pointing the finger at the jock are questionable hopefully setting things so that RIAA will need to have better proof in their next lawsuit.

Re:Be Smart About This

[toppavak]

Instead, use the name of the jock down the hall that you hate anyway. I guess he's SOL then considering its MIT... ;)

Re:Be Smart About This

[Anonymous Coward]

"Jock down the hall?" Which part of "MIT" don't you understand?

Re:Be Smart About This

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, use the name of the jock down the hall that you hate anyway. The jock?
This is MIT dude.

What about, the name of the dumbass that uses Emacs?

Re:Be Smart About This

[blind monkey 3]

Is he guilty? - U.S. law: Guilty until proven rich. How much money does he have?

Good Homework Assignment

[amasiancrasian]

Maybe his attorneys will be able to get some assistance from some of the Harvard Law School students in Professor Nesson's 'Evidence' class, who have been assigned -- as part of their coursework -- the drafting of a motion to quash an RIAA subpoena." How's that for applying classwork in a practical application? More schools should be doing what Harvard is doing instead of succumbing to the demands of the RIAA. I wish I had a professor like that...

Holy..

[whodkne]

Ok, that's it... I'm leaving /. for good.

Re:Why taking on RIAAl, if you can take on Bush?

[gollito]

Ummm... yeah.... about that

What software does the RIAA use?

[xoundmind]

I haven't loaded up a file sharing program in years. (Back in the Napster/Limewire heyday years.) Which programs are the RIAA using to "catch" folks these days?

Re:What software does the RIAA use?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an employee of a major public university who handles such complaints, the vast majority of the "stop it!" type simple take-down requests are bittorrent related. These "pre-subpoena" notices are almost all Limewire/Gnutella, likely because they can say, "you had eleventy hundred songs in your shared folder @ $750/song, please settle" versus the single file at a time model used by torrents.

Re:What software does the RIAA use?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

As an employee of a major public university who handles such complaints, the vast majority of the "stop it!" type simple take-down requests are bittorrent related. These "pre-subpoena" notices are almost all Limewire/Gnutella, likely because they can say, "you had eleventy hundred songs in your shared folder @ $750/song, please settle" versus the single file at a time model used by torrents. I have never seen a single proceeding brought by the RIAA which did not involve "Limewire/Gnutella" or other similar Fast Track client. I have never yet seen a single case based on BitTorrent.

Re:Why Slashdot will be on CNN tonight....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey you forgot about the influence of the subterraean mole people, and the illuminatti!! What gives?!

John Doe

[MrCopilot]

I thought that dude was dead.

Re:John Doe

[Anonymous Meoward]

Nope. He just had to leave Los Angeles.

Re:John Doe

[cyphercell]

they killed him? For downloading music? This has gone too far!!!

Re:John Doe

[Schmiggy_JK]

No that is just the TV show... thanks a lot FOX!

That is EXACTLY the point people overlook

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is not a government entity. They can NOT enforce laws legally. They can CLAIM that you have broken the law, and infringed on their (in actuality, their client's) rights but they can NOT punish you themselves.

They can trace your IP, just like you can trace theirs. They can NOT however look at your private files without your express permission. They'd have to provide enough evidence in court for them to be able to get a warrant for the GOVERNMENT to do it.

Then there is the whole fact that what you CAN be found guilty of is copyright infringement, NOT THEFT. There is a reason they are legally different, and that is because with theft you DEPRIVE someone of something. With these digital goods you can make an exact copy and the owner of the original STILL HAS THEIRS.

As the poster said: "The RIAA had his IP address, and traced him. This is like a burglar complaining that the cops investigated a burglary and traced the goods to his house."

WRONG. This is like an ALLEGED burglar complaining that someone followed them to their house, called the cops, told the cops that they have 'proof' that the ALLEGED burglar robbed someone, and the cops arresting him because the supposed 'burglar' was followed to his own home.

Yes I hate the RIAA. No, I don't think that downloading music for free without permission is right. I think that the tactics used by the RIAA should be fully investigated by the FBI (preferably before the FBI are made into the personal tool of the RIAA, the lawyers of COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES) and they should be shut down. People like to bring up 'racketeering' charges, but there are some more realistic ones with hefty punishments that should be used.

Various 'harassment' statutes come to mind.

No. How do you know he wanted YOU to get it?

[Anonymous Coward]

He may be sharing the file with his home. He may be sharing with friends alone. He may not know he's sharing ALL of his D drive and his "My Documents" folder (he's not put it in "My Music").

How do you know?

And if the mere fact of putting it on the internet is acceptance, then there's a lot of case law to be overturned:

MiVii is the RIAA letting people take it
Accessing an open WP is fine now
Copiepresse is boned
etc

Re:Latin for Slashfags

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words: COPY PASTA.

Never attribute to intelligence what can be explained by sourcing from the internet.

failing that, this troll needs to stop glorifying the Romans and probably needs some MDMA and a hug.

Why does this matter?

[SanityInAnarchy]

"Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be falsely convicted."

It needs to be well over 99% before it's even worth talking about. It's innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until 75% likely.

Re:Why does this matter?

[adminstring]

However, in civil suits, which is all the RIAA files, it's "not liable" until 51% likely. There's a much lower standard of proof for civil cases - "a preponderance of the evidence."

I'd like to file a bug report.

[SanityInAnarchy]

XKCD says it better than I could.

Re:Why taking on RIAAl, if you can take on Bush?

[Anonymous Coward]

and since no voter will ever trust a Bonesman again

I never trusted Larry Craig to begin with.

Seriously, dude, go with the red pill next time.

Even MIT assumes guilt

[peektwice]

MIT's veep of Information Services and Technology is quoted in TFA as saying

Unauthorized downloading and sharing of copyrighted files is illegal, contrary to MIT policy, and a serious matter with potentially damaging consequences. MIT strongly discourages such unauthorized downloading and sharing of computer files. Even the MIT faculty and staff are assuming that students are guilty until proven innocent.

Re:Even MIT assumes guilt

[photomonkey]

I fail to see how any of that implies guilt. Infringing upon someone's copyright IS illegal and is probably discouraged by MIT. They're not saying not to go grab the latest Ubuntu distro...

I don't agree with how the mafIAA handles their copyright cases, but as the law stands, it's well within their rights to go after infringers.

Undue burden

[esocid]

From the harvard law's professor's page "frame a motion to quash a subpoena from a copyright holder to the university for the identity of a student downloader on grounds of undue burden."
So what exactly would be defined as an undue burden? Their request for the student's private information, or their exorbitant damages?

Re:Undue burden

[Bigjeff5]

Basically the subpoenas say "People on your campus are illegally copying music, you need to find out who they are and give us their records so we can sue." They are a little more specific, but not much.

That's a hell of a burden for any university, and is the basis for the "undue burden".

Re:Undue burden

[Anonymous Coward]

When will you people learn?

Slashdot isn't the place to get your homework questions done for you!

(You should use Usenet for that...)

Recording Industry vs The People

[CodeBuster]

He should definitely let his counsel know about Recording Industry vs The People which is a wonderful source of briefs, documents from related cases, decisions, and other strategies and tactics used by others defending cases against the RIAA and the music labels. Perhaps NewYorkCountryLawyer or his firm can help him out if can scrape together a few bucks to pay their fees.

Re:Recording Industry vs The People

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

He should definitely let his counsel know about Recording Industry vs The People [blogspot.com] which is a wonderful source of briefs, documents from related cases, decisions, and other strategies and tactics used by others defending cases against the RIAA and the music labels. Perhaps NewYorkCountryLawyer [slashdot.org] or his firm can help him out if can scrape together a few bucks to pay their fees. Thanks, Codebuster. Actually I was hoping some of these lawyers, who are already up in Cambridge, could jump in.

WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

every student using P2P on their network is easily identifiable to the outside world.

i guess it takes an MIT education to know this is wrong.

they *know* the computer, NOT THE PERSON OPERATING IT.

they aren't fining the computer, which they know, rather, they are fining the operator WHICH THEY DON'T KNOW.

so they have to prove it was the person who actually operated the computer.

innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

well, pre 9/11/01, anyway.

Re:WRONG

[Free_Meson]

i guess it takes an MIT education to know this is wrong. they *know* the computer, NOT THE PERSON OPERATING IT. they aren't fining the computer, which they know, rather, they are fining the operator WHICH THEY DON'T KNOW. so they have to prove it was the person who actually operated the computer. innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

Relax, buddy. Guilty isn't even an option here. It's a civil suit. I don't believe any courses at MIT cover such trivia, but it's the sort of thing you'd pick up in the course of a standard high school education. Forgive my previous brevity, but in a case such as this an IP address is as good as a name.

Knowing which physical machine was used for the infringement is quite useful (here, the machine owned and registered by defendant with MIT). The plaintiff can then compel discovery of defendant's computer as well as any other computers, documents, or storage devices that may be relevant.

Once ownership is established and evidence is gathered, plaintiff would probably not have to argue the issue of control in court. Mere ownership would probably meet their evidentiary burden (here, preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt). The jury would be allowed to infer that defendant, as exclusive owner of a personal computer in his residence, had exclusive control over its use. Even if defendant can prove that he was not operating the computer at the time(s) that infringement occurred, he could likely be held liable under a theory of contributory copyright infringement if the jury finds that he knew or should have known that the operator of his computer was violating copyright.

In the unlikely event that a very close and personal friend stepped up and claimed that he had used defendant's computer to distribute copyrighted works on a P2P network, defendant is likely still hosed. Even if this friend convinced a jury that he had secured the use of defendant's computer by deceit and had not informed defendant of the infringement, if defendant could reasonably be expected to discover the existence of the P2P program or the illegal copies then the contributory infringement claim would likely stand. The friend would fail in saving defendant, and would be jointly and severally liable for copyright infringement. His computer, storage devices, documents, etc would be subject to discovery as well.

When discussing any legal action, remember that the judge is insanely busy, the jury is pissed, and both are going to spot a lame argument a mile away. On a campus with many more computers than students, how credible will defendant's argument that someone used his computer without his knowledge be? Keep in mind that plaintiff will likely be able to document continuous activity over an extended period of time and, if contested, the question of control would certainly go to the jury. You'd have the opportunity to convince 6 angry people that you did not have control or knowledge over the contents and operation of your computer. Making stuff up under oath in a federal court is a very bad idea, by the way.

Pretty much the only way for defendant to prevail would be to show that he had no access to his computer when the infringement took place (for example, in a different country) and that he had not given permission for anyone else to use his computer.

I don't practice in the field of copyright law, though. I'm sure someone who does will clarify any mistakes I may have made.

Honestly

[Trogre]

One good way to stop the RIAA:

Take away their revenue stream. And I'm not advocating downloading their* product for free. I'm advocating stopping "consuming" their products altogether. If you listen to their music, you're effectively endorsing it and giving value to what they're peddling.

Okay so we have the problem that mainstream music is a large part of our (western) culture. And that is a problem.

* Of course by "their" I mean "their member companies", since the RIAA itself doesn't actually produce anything apart from threatening letters and legal documents AFAIK.

Re:english please

[langelgjm]

You raise an interesting point of grammar. Personally, I'd be inclined to say "an RIAA," because unless you say "reeya," RIAA starts with a vowel sound - "ar."

The wikipedia article for English indefinite articles states that "an" is "now used before words starting with a vowel sound, regardless of whether the word begins with a vowel letter." However, there is also no citation given for that statement.

On the other hand, a brief Google search turns up 55,000 results for "an RIAA" and 61,000 for "a RIAA."

Re:english please

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure it is "an". "An" is used when the following word starts with a vowel or starts with a vowel sound.

A good defense is a better offense

[skatedog]

I always read these RIAA prosecution stories and the comments and they are mostly the same. I often wonder, maybe too simplistically, why no one plays this angle. Maybe I pre-date most of those on slashdot but as an avid buyer of vinyl in the 80's, I was wondering if purchasing the record in 1980 that has long since worn out, I might convince a jury that the Music industry actually sold me a defective product, and I was only replacing that product by downloading the MP3 of that album in 2007. Maybe even launch a class action lawsuit against the record labels related to selling defective products designed to wear out. Might I consider my purchase of the song in 1980 a license in perpetuity that entitles me to own a single copy of that song and that my download of the MP3 was witin my rights, implied by the contract I entered into with the record label when I purchased the song on vinyl decades ago? Probably a stretch and maybe not based on solid legal ground but it sure would make for an interesting episode of Boston Legal!

Re:A good defense is a better offense

[cthulhu11]

1) I think it would be easily argued that a vinyl LP is widely known to degrade with use 2) The RIAA / MPAA suits, as I understand them, aren't really about the [apparently] minor offense of downloading, but rather the offense of distributing to N others, where N is presumably large. Typical filesharing protocols upload to others at the same time they download, and this is the basis of their cases. Some years ago I dl'd a couple of TV episodes via bittorrent and my employer got two nastygrams from the MPAA (I think) in the above theme. I stick with CD's for music and Netflix/ITMS for TV episodes. I have a job so it's not a hardship to stay legal.

Re:english please

[wongaboo]

Of course it isn't as clear cut as that. Grammar Girl writes one of the best blogs and here's what she had to say on "a versus an" The rule is that you use a before words that start with a consonant sound and an before words that start with a vowel sound (1). When I say "RIAA" out loud it sounds like "aR-EYE-A-A" so to my mind it should be "an RIAA subpoena." You might disagree but I think you must see that it isn't clear cut enough for you to get so huffy.

New legal justification open downloads of music

[FromTheAir]

Maybe this idea will get to the right minds perhaps one of you know who they are and will create awareness. When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for. I don't think the music industry understands this; apparently this has not been clarified in the courts. We are not buying the piece of plastic they are printed on.

It does not matter what the source is or what format we have it in. We are purchasing a license to listen at our leisure to a song or watch a movie. We can have a thousand copies because we can only listen to one at a time. Somebody needs to argue this in court. That we are in fact purchasing a license to listen, not a piece of plastic or a digital file of zero's and ones.

This is the New legal justification for open downloads of music or copy righted material:

In fact the record labels need to, I think legally provide, free downloads of music. The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media.

I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.

Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.

Truth is we don't need the record companies anymore. We can all buy from the artists direct and vote with a link what is most popular. I would be happy to pay the creative talent directly without the huge middle man cut. Another things is corporate pressure to maintain the status quo system cannot be put on artists by large corporations.

Hopefully someone will get this into the hands of the attorneys for the defendants.

Technically based on quantum physics there is only one copy of a piece of music in the universe. This exists in the intangible realm; all tangible manifestations of this one copy are simply a physical conveyance of this one real instance. It is an information universe, everything is ultimately just information.

Re:New legal justification open downloads of music

[Carlinya]

Gah, of all times for me to have used up my mod points!

Re:New legal justification open downloads of music

[tinkerghost]

When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for.

That really depends on which argument the RIAA/MPAA is spouting at the moment. The 'you purchased a license' argument is used when they are trying to expand copyright to extend past things like 'right of first sale'. However the 'you purchased the CD' is used to try and block format shifting & force you to buy the MP3/ringtone/whatever.

So what exactly you purchased when you bought that CD is somewhat mutable.

Re:New legal justification open downloads of music

[vortigern00]

>I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.

You are NOT kidding... About 10 years ago I worked at a radio station. We would stack the CDs bare all over the place, we would play frisbee with them, we handled them roughly without a care, and then we would play them on the air. I can't remember ever getting a skippy CD on the air.

But now I have to handle my CDs like they are made of still-cooling candle wax. Even scratches I can't see make them skip. The CD player itself can scratch the CD enough to make it skip.

-Vort

Re:Latin for Slashfags

[wordsofwisedumb]

The font for the Google logo is Catull, named after Catullus (the Roman pornographic poet mentioned above).

None

[Weaselmancer]

Stealing someone's identity is fraud.

Stealing secrets is espionage.

Stealing music is copyright violation.

Stealing a car is theft.

Re:None

[Trogre]

So you're okay to call downloading music without permission stealing then?

Re:Mitch Hedberg taught me everything I need to kn

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the doughnut joke, but the reason places such as doughnut shops give out receipts is to protect the owner from the employees. The "no receipt and your purchase is free" signs are to ensure the employees enter the transaction into the cash register. They can't as easily pocket the "dough", and the shop owner gets the customers to help keep the employees from stealing.

Anyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else think it's about time that the RIAA just dispense with the cover and hire a few ninjas?

Huh?

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I wasn't aware of a legal requirement for showing where you bought... well, just about anything short of firearms.

Huh? There's no legal requirement for showing where you bought your firearms, at least in my jurisdiction. I've bought them off guys at the range, at yard sales, estate sales, etc., and often without a paper trail. Even where there is a paper trail, as when I buy from a licensed dealer, there's no requirement that I keep any records. Assuming the existence of such a requirement makes no sense.

So, in what horrifically non-free jurisdiction do you live, anyway?

Argh...

[Weaselmancer]

I just knew after I posted that someone would get cute and want to play some word games. Ok, I'll clarify:

"Stealing" someone's identity is actually called fraud. It is not stealing because you still have your identity afterwards.

"Stealing" someone's secrets is actually called espionage. It is not stealing because you still have your information afterwards.

"Stealing" someone's music is actually called copyright violation. It is not stealing because the artist still has their music afterwards.

Stealing a car can also be called theft. It IS stealing because you DO NOT have your car afterwards.

There. Clear enough yet?

Re:Argh...

[Trogre]

Thank you.

And you know what? I completely agree with you. Now can you please repeat what you just said the next time a /. article comes up using the terms identity theft or code theft? Thanks ever so much.

Re:english please

[Anonymous Coward]

English, please. (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by tute666 (688551) on Wednesday January 23, @08:13PM (#22161860)
"A RIAA subpoena" not "an RIAA subpoena".

An Ar Eye Ay Ay, you dumb fucking faggot troll.

Why are you fuckin' grammar nazi's always wrong?

Didn't notice it was you

[Weaselmancer]

Sorry if that previous post came off as a little grouchy. Thought it was someone else splitting hairs. You had asked a legitimate question earlier, so sorry 'bout that.

Yeah, I'll keep repeating this every time the "OMG stealing music is teh theft!" idiots chime in on an IP issue.