Slashdot Mirror
U. Maine Law Students Trying To Shut RIAA Down
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Remember those pesky student attorneys from the University of Maine School of Law's Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic, who inspired the Magistrate Judge to suggest monetary fines against the RIAA lawyers? Well they're in the RIAA's face once again, and this time they're trying to shut down the RIAA's whole 'discovery' machine: the lawsuits it files against 'John Does' in order to find out their names and addresses. They've gone and filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions (PDF), seeking — among other things — an injunction against all such 'John Doe' cases, arguing that the cases seek to circumvent the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which protects student privacy rights, are brought for improper purposes of obtaining discovery, getting publicity, and intimidation, and are in flagrant violation of the joinder rules and numerous court orders. If the injunction is granted, the RIAA will have to go back to the drawing board to find another way of finding out the identities of college students, and the ruling — depending on its reasoning — might even be applicable to the non-college cases involving commercial ISPs."
How about college kids learn to PAY THEIR FUCKING WAY and stop stealing music?
What the hell is wrong with tracing who is downloading copyrighted material then suing the cunts?
If you cant afford the music you cant have it. You are at college to learn, not max out your fucking mp3 player.
Idiots.
There's been a number of movements against the *iaa. I particuarly like the third group in the list.
"And that's what the RIAA is apparently doing, rampantly."
No, that's what the people posting on Slashdot like to say, but like most people talking about positions they disagree with, they skew it.
The RIAA has the evidence they need to make a case and succeed (they've got X address downloading/uploading Y file, to which they have no right, at Z time) they just need to find the name of the guy that's breaking the law.
If the police had a description of a shoplifter (because if there's one thing Slashdotters hate more than analogies, it's analogies where copyright infringement is compared to theft), and knew that the shoplifter was at this location, and this is what they took, would subpoenaing footage of that location be considered an abuse of discovery by many people here? Nope. If there was a convenient log showing who entered or left the building and at what time, would that be considered an abuse of the discovery process? Nope.
And, just as an aside, does anyone have a copy of the agreement those kids signed agreeing not to use the school's computers or computer networks to violate copyright and often agreeing to the release of their records in cooperation with legal proceedings?
The website itself says that as an ISP they have to act when notified of a violation, and they also say they will terminate your internet account, but it doesn't rule out other actions.
Everyone here knows that the alternative to the schools handing over the names of people breaking the law is RIAA going after the schools, not for their participation as ISPs, but for their failure to take measures to stop the violation of the law when informed of such violations, given a chance to crack down and yet, still not taking measures designed to stop infringement. Everyone's upset at the RIAA and accusing it of violating student record-keeping laws, but nobody cares that the school is selling the students out to prevent potential trouble for themselves later.
Oh, and I urge people to read the gobblygook those future lawyers are trying to pass off as legal theory. Yeah, the Plaintiffs allege copyright violation and even specify the software used in the violation, but they don't EXPLAIN THE THEORY OF P2P SOFTWARE? In the next complaint, the lawyer will certainly put "jackasses sign on, download files they may or may not have rights to, and in exchange for that, they act as servers and pass the information back along to others who they do not know and have no idea whether or not those people have the rights to that information."
And you all need to thank the RIAA for being nice... those students toss around a lot of conclusory allegations, and bs mischaracterizations that amount to nothing more than "no shit judge, these guys are asses." If the RIAA's lawyers were as heartless as many people think, they'd savage this student.
...to not distribute copyrighted work you don't own the copyright to? It just seems easier to not do something, than it does to do something illegal then try to prevent the claimant from collecting their royalties.
At the end of the day it's a lot cheaper to go pay the rightful owner of the copyrighted material for the material than it is to steal it, give it away, later get caught, then have to pay a settlement for every copy you gave away.
Am I missing something or are the people getting sued trying to get something for nothing, then give it away to the internets? In this case it's easier to not break the law, though up front it seems easier. You sort of have to be living on Mars to not know that you will eventually get tracked down. It's a pretty stupid (not to mention illegal) thing to do.
I guess you reap what you sow. Then again, I cut mixes for musicians so maybe my view on this issue is skewed. The copyright law is pretty straightforward, if you own the copyright you can distribute a work any way you see fit. If you don't own the copyright, you aren't allowed to distribute the work.
Copyright is pretty black and white with little room for confusion... Legally I have to ask for permission (and get it in writing) to put something I mix up on my myspace page, and I help make the stuff possible. However, the recorded work belongs to the musician, unless I make them sign something that says I own it.
I once hired an entertainment attorney to explain it all to me, who was very surprised that it's not self evident. I did understand this stuff already, but just wanted to make sure it really was that simple.
The RIAA, while draconian in it's methods, is trying to protect the people that pay them to police distribution of their work. They aren't the bad guys, they just have a dirty job. The people giving away their client's property are the bad guys, whether it's on CD, digital file, dvd, counterfeit copy, whatever. The medium and price they charge for the copies (usually free) is irrelevant.
Personal feelings aside, the law is the law. If you want free music, get the law changed.
-AC
Ask any intelligent educated real artist what percentage of the commercial drivel masquerading as art is original? 5%? Artists copy other artists. Copying is natural. Coping is fun. Copying is best when its P2P. Artists are stuffing stuff they themselves didn't create into their art. So are you saying artists should be banned from using public domain words in their songs and lyrics because they are copying ideas created by others? How about blues progressions in their songs? These so-called artists are the biggest rip off thieves who ever lived.