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."
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.
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.
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... )
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
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.
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.
-- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
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.
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.
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.
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?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
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!
"skate the web"