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

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: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: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.

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

[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.

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...

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.