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."
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.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
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.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
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.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
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.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
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.
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."
My truck is like a series of tubes.
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.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
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.