Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
Committing copyright violation is not theft.
But it is illegal.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
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).
Unlawful, actually. Not illegal.
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.
this space intentionally left blank
'piracy' is not a legal term (unless talking about boats)
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.
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.
I wish I could mod this "Insightful but depressing".
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. - Mahatma Gandhi