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.
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
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
"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.
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
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.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
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
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.
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.
Maybe they can ask John's siblings Tae Kwon, Dosie, and Cookie?
[joke stolen from the show Psych, with no shame]
Sue MIT for not protecting your student records properly. You can use that settlement money to pay off the RIAA.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Instead, use the name of the jock down the hall that you hate anyway.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
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.)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
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.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
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)
I like basketball!!1!
Ummm... yeah.... about that
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
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).
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Ah, righto, I stand corrected. Completely forgot that bit.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
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.
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
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?
I thought that dude was dead.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
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.
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.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
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.
'piracy' is not a legal term (unless talking about boats)
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.
Incorrect. RIAA needs to prove he's guilty, he doesn't have to prove he's innocent.
Can someone make a car analogy please?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
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.
"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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
XKCD says it better than I could.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
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."
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
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"
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.
cogito ergo oro
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.
Balderdash!
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 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
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.
Stealing someone's identity is fraud.
Stealing secrets is espionage.
Stealing music is copyright violation.
Stealing a car is theft.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
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.
11:0T:C0:FF:EE:5A
:)
Hot Coffee, San Andreas.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
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?
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?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.