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."

Comments

Hidden subject

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I'm just trying to be helpful here. NYCL's wording is a bit too lawyerly for the likes of us IANALs.

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.

They filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions, seeking an injunction against these cases. They argue that 1) the cases seek to circumvent the FERPA (the FERPA protects student privacy rights), 2) the cases are in violation of the joinder rules and numerous court orders, and 3) the cases are brought for improper purposes of a) obtaining discovery, b) getting publicity, c) and intimidation.

If you ever wonder why lawyers get paid so much, it's the same reason porn stars do. It's not a difficult job, but you wouldn't want to tell your family that you spend all day producing gibberish.

Re:Hidden subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, way to karma whore and not provide anything useful. 1. Good a) job.

Re:Hidden subject

[Red Flayer]

Sheesh, what is slashdot coming to when even BadAnalogyGuy gets too complacent to come up with a car analogy in order to clarify something that is apparently confusing?

And note,

If you ever wonder why lawyers get paid so much, it's the same reason porn stars do. It's not a difficult job, but you wouldn't want to tell your family that you spend all day producing gibberish.

Last time I checked, porn stars aren't paid for producing gibberish. /deliberately obtuse

Re:Hidden subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked, porn stars aren't paid for producing gibberish.

Hence the BAD FUCKING ANALOGY. WTF were you expecting?

Re:Hidden subject

[morgan_greywolf]

Some additional translation:

FERPA is a law that products student records. FERPA :: Student Records == HIPPA :: Medical Records.

Joinder rules are what let a party join, whether the plaintiff or defendant, be named together in a single lawsuit. What these law students are doing is accussing the RIAA of misjoinder:

misjoinder n. the inclusion of parties (plaintiffs or defendants) or causes of action (legal claims) in a single lawsuit contrary to statute. Reasons for a court ruling that there is misjoinder include: a) the parties do not have the same rights to a judgment; b) they have conflicting interests; c) the situations in each claim (cause of action) are different or contradictory; or d) the defendants are not involved (even slightly) in the same transaction. In a criminal prosecution the most common cause for misjoinder is that the defendants were involved in different alleged crimes, or the charges are based on different transactions.

The 3rd one is pretty obvious and means what it says.

Rule 11 is just the part of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure that lets parties seek sanctions against a party in a lawsuit, usually for some type of misconduct.

Re:Hidden subject

[sm62704]

If you ever wonder why lawyers get paid so much, it's the same reason porn stars do. It's not a difficult job, but you wouldn't want to tell your family that you spend all day producing gibberish

I don't question the money my doctor will make when he sticks needles in my eye tomorrow. He has the training and experience to do the job. I also didn't question the money I paid my divorce attorney when I was divorced; she, also, had the training and experience. I don't pay my lawyer to produce gibberish, I pay him to translate it to me, and speak Martian with his fellow Martians. Most normal people (i.e., those not on slashdot) whouldn't have a clue what two slashdotters were talking about when we're discussing, say, computers. "Sorry, Mr. Geek, I don't speak nerdish".

I don't see where a porn star has to have a lot of education. Like an MD, you pay your lawyer more for what he knows than for what he does.

Re:Hidden subject

[geminidomino]

I don't see where a porn star has to have a lot of education. Like an MD, you pay your lawyer more for what he knows than for what he does. Bollocks. Like an MD, you pay your lawyer for his membership in an exclusive, government enforced monopoly.

Re:Hidden subject

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thanks, Morgan. Hope you get modded up for providing all that useful information.

Re:Hidden subject

[gstoddart]

Last time I checked, porn stars aren't paid for producing gibberish.

Have you ever been subjected to porn which attempts to actually have a dialog and maybe a plot? Believe me, these people aren't really capable of delivering lines. It's purely gibberish, and jarringly annoying.

Er, at least, that's what I've been told. Yeah, that's it. I, uh, read it on line some place. :-P

Cheers

Re:Hidden subject

[idiotnot]

But privacy protections do not extend to protections of illegal activities. This comes up more often in relation to drug investigations...

Cops: Have you busted individuals x, y, and z, on campus for drug posession and/or distribution?
School: I can't tell you that.
Cops: Okay, we're going to the magistrate right now, and we'll see your counsel in court first thing in the morning.
School: Okay, yes, we have busted them ten times. They all completed mandatory university-sponsored drug education, and the drugs were destroyed (in the lit professor's bong).

Re:Hidden subject

[morgan_greywolf]

But privacy protections do not extend to protections of illegal activities. This comes up more often in relation to drug investigations Drug possession and distribution are criminal actions. The RIAA is filing civil copyright infringement suits. They are not the same thing. In either case, a proper subpoena from a judge, for just cause, must be served before the school can legally produce these records. I don't think that the RIAA has done that in many cases -- they just demanded records from the schools and some schools, fearing legal initimidation from the MAFIAA, just turned them over. Both the school and the RIAA are liable for FERPA violations in these cases.

In the exchange you proferred, the school broke the law. They should have, to cover their legal arses, requested the cops come back with a subpoena. THat would be completely within the law.

Re:Hidden subject

[DarkKnightRadick]

Er, at least, that's what I've been told. Yeah, that's it. I, uh, read it on line some place.

Must've read it on /. in some users journal. ;)

Re:Hidden subject

[Anonymous Coward]

>But privacy protections do not extend to protections of illegal activities.

Actually, they do. My wife is a doctor and she always asks her patients if they're doing crystal meth (we're in the midwest; apparently the question gets changed to coke/crack in the east and pot/shrooms in the west) to make sure the meds don't have adverse reactions. Under HIPAA, she cannot provide that information to the authorities. A recent case in Kansas supported this where the attorney general (AG) tried to get Planned Parenthood (PP) to turn over medical records because he thought they were performing illegal late-term abortions. The Kansas Department of Health and PP fought the order and after 4 years have succeeded multiple times in preventing the AG from looking at patients medical records because he thought they _might_ have done something illegal (he was on a fishing expedition).

Lawyer records are similarly protected, except that a lawyer has an ethical obligation to report an ongoing crime (eg if his client tells him he plans to kill the informant).

Re:Hidden subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to the preemptive nature of their work, rule#34 does not apply to p0rn star. ;)

Re:Hidden subject

[Kierthos]

Actually, I pay him because he knows what the hell he is doing and has had the training to do it. I wouldn't pay an auto mechanic to represent me in court, and I wouldn't pay a lawyer to fix my transmission. It has nothing to do with any sort of government enforced monopoly. It has to do with the fact that they are trained to perform the jobs I ask them to do.

Re:Hidden subject

[ari_j]

Yeah, I just read the scripts.

Re:Hidden subject

[idiotnot]

Actually, reading the complaint, the RIAA did subpeona the records. The argument is that what they requested should still be protected, because the RIAA doesn't actually end up litigating these cases. It's a stretch.

Re:Hidden subject

[Anonymous Coward]

What badanalogyguy meant to say was that both lawyers and porn stars f*ck around all day, with their thumbs in theirs or other people's arses.

Re:Hidden subject

[steelfood]

You watch all your porn on mute too?

Re:Hidden subject

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

No, you're mixing together two different arguments.

The FERPA argument is: "The records are not discoverable under FERPA; the issuance of the subpoena was contrary to law. Period." The same point is made by the Oregon Attorney General in Arista v. Does 1-17.

The additional arguments for sanctions, which are separate and distinct from the FERPA argument, are that (a) the case is brought for improper purposes (publicity, intimidation, and discovery) and (b) the deliberate misjoinder flaunts the court rules and numerous court orders.

The discovery issue under (a) is that it's never proper to bring a lawsuit in federal court for the purpose of obtaining discovery. The "John Doe" cases are definitely brought for that purpose, because they are immediately dropped after the RIAA gets the information it was looking for. I.e., it is a pre-action discovery proceeding [which is not authorized under the Federal Rules] masquerading as a copyright infringement proceeding. It is immaterial to the latter argument whether the discovery is or is not barred by FERPA.

Re:Hidden subject

[steelfood]

Like an MD, you pay your lawyer more for what he knows than for what he does.

Not quite. A good lawyer, or team of lawyers, should be able to put their knowledge to good use. Just knowing how to defeat someone doesn't mean you actually can.

So you're paying for both, the strategist who comes up with the game plan and the warrior who executes it.

It's the same with surgeons, and even sometimes with general physicians. You wouldn't want to have a needle meant to draw blood going into a nerve, would you?

I kind of agree with everything else though. Well, except that it's far more likely to be: "Sorry Mr. Geek, I don't speek Klingon."

Re:Hidden subject

[Colonel Korn]

"If you ever wonder why lawyers get paid so much, it's the same reason porn stars do. It's not a difficult job, but you wouldn't want to tell your family that you spend all day producing gibberish."

But...what you said was in no way more clear or concise than NYCL's summary.

Re:Hidden subject

[kd4zqe]

Last time I checked, porn stars aren't paid for producing gibberish.

I don't know about you, but I can rarely understand the words coming out of their mouth with their profession getting in the way...
I kinda feel the same way about lawyers...

Re:Hidden subject

[mwvdlee]

How exactly is your version easier?
I actually have less problems with the original version, but that's mainly because I understand the legal terms. Anybody who doesn't, still won't after reading your version.

Re:Hidden subject

[BenEnglishAtHome]

>But privacy protections do not extend to protections of illegal activities.

Actually, they do

Aren't you both right? There are some illegal things that have privacy protection in some circumstances and some that don't.

In the case of your wife who's a doctor, she may be obligated under HIPAA to keep drug use private. But if some 8-year-old comes in with a condition clearly caused by repeated sexual activity, I'll bet she has a higher priority legal obligation to notify the authorities. You can get no-questions-asked treatment for drug addiction but if you go to a therapist and ask for help overcoming your addiction to child porn, you're likely to find the cops banging on your door.

Likewise, confessional privilege varies. It doesn't exist in the U.K. In the U.S., it's modified depending on the state you're in, whether your priest is a licensed counselor of some sort (and thus subject to the laws applying to that profession) and the context under which your confession is made.

In the instant case, we're dealing with things at a lower level. This isn't a planned murder or ongoing child molestation. This is a civil claim, represented as being *really* big and important by the people who are bringing it, versus a set of legal protections for student records, something generally acknowledged to be a good thing. But neither concern is so clearly inferior to the other that a judgement is easy. It sounds to me like a real crap shoot whether a judge would come down on one side or the other.

Of course, I could render a more insightful opinion if I actually read the article. But then I wouldn't be a true slashdotter, would I?

Re:Hidden subject

[Facetious]

It took a second glance at your post and username before I realized you weren't being sarcastic. This is /. afterall.

Re:Hidden subject

[Anonymous Coward]

FERPA is a law that products student records. FERPA :: Student Records == HIPPA :: Medical Records.

Some correct translation:

FERPA == Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act : protects student records

HIPAA == Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act : protects medical records

Re:Hidden subject

[GHynson]

I guess I'm the only one in the world that uses the FF button in porn.
So,..no, I don't know anything about the quality of the dialogue.

Re:Hidden subject

[Dragonslicer]

>But privacy protections do not extend to protections of illegal activities.

Actually, they do.... Under HIPAA, she cannot provide that information to the authorities. Doesn't doctor-patient confidentiality predate HIPAA?

Re:Hidden subject

[audubon]

...the deliberate misjoinder flaunts the court rules and numerous court orders...

flaunt to exhibit ostentatiously

flout scoff: treat with contemptuous disregard; "flout the rules"

Re:Hidden subject

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

...the deliberate misjoinder flaunts the court rules and numerous court orders... flaunt to exhibit ostentatiously
scoff: treat with contemptuous disregard; "flout the rules"

Sorry. Thanks for correcting me.

Re:Hidden subject

[bob.appleyard]

There are mandated certification schemes for doctors and lawyers (among many other professions). Which isn't a bad idea, in itself: there are medical quacks (dunno anything about potential legal quackery), and the certification process provides some protection against this, along with academic qualifications and so on.

Those can be viewed as legal monopolies, but I don't think it's much of an issue. Provided you're not a quack, that is. Then I imagine it's the height of injustice.

It might even be a good idea to certify IT professionals (beyond other schemes like Cisco certification), as the presence of IT quackery is manifest. How you'd go about it in an industry like IT would take a great deal of thought, though.

Re:Hidden subject

[Danse]

It might even be a good idea to certify IT professionals (beyond other schemes like Cisco certification), as the presence of IT quackery is manifest. How you'd go about it in an industry like IT would take a great deal of thought, though. Yes, and such a scheme should only be devised by one with the proper certifications to create it, certainly.

Re:Hidden subject

[jedidiah]

This "government enforced monopoly" basically boils down to being able to pass the
entrance exam into law school. That's really not much of a bar. That's much like
saying there is a conspiracy to limit the supply of programmers and engineers.

Actually, the latter makes far more sense. The BS level is higher.

Re:Hidden subject

[UnknowingFool]

Apparently I've been told they all start the same way:

[Knock on door]
Pizza Guy: Did someone order some pizza?
[Cue music: Bow-chicka-wow-wow]

Re:Hidden subject

[Austerity Empowers]

Have you ever watched porn close caption?

Re:Hidden subject

[Anonymous Coward]

What I question is the need to obfuscate the simplest legal document to the point it "requires" a lawyer to interpret. What should be a one page paper telling you what the law is turns into a sixty-five page essay trying to address every possible nuance of where and when the law would apply. That is what a judge and jury is for.

Re:Hidden subject

[martinQblank]

Sounds almost as useless as porn via braille.

Re:Hidden subject

[dr_dank]

I don't question the money my doctor will make when he sticks needles in my eye tomorrow.

Aren't you taking the whole "cross my heart, hope to die" thing a little too far?

Re:Hidden subject

[Hawke666]

You obviously haven't seen Pirates then.

Re:Hidden subject

[sm62704]

"Sorry Mr. Geek, I don't speek Klingon."

The people who won't understand a word you're saying when you're trying to explain something about their computer very likely won't have a clue what a Klingon is, either, let alone know that they actually made up a language for them.

You're absolutely right about putting that legal and medical knowlege to use. The needles will be going into my EYE!

Re:Hidden subject

[sm62704]

What I question is the need to obfuscate the simplest law to the point it requires a lawyer to interpret.

Re:Hidden subject

[Stevecrox]

Your talking about ethical responsibilities, as the parent said a Lawyer has a ethical responsibility to report if a accused is planning to kill and informant, just as a Doctor has a ethical responsibility to report child molestation. In both cases the job is to protect someone who can't protect themselves from anouther force. If you were to look into domestic violence cases while it might be in the doctors interest to taddle on a beating wife/husband unless the victim comes forward or they can defintily prove something dodgy is going on there very little they can do because it would be a breech of their privacy.

Thats where technology falls short, excusing a few organisations like the IEEE and IET (which are voluntary) there are no industry ethics.

Re:Hidden subject

[sm62704]

You know, I really wish I hadn't said that as a kid!

I have a detached retina. Dr. Odin is going to do a Pneumatic retinopexy and a Vitrectomy. I'll probably write a journal about it, maybe Friday but probably Monday.

Re:Hidden subject

[Anonymous Coward]

jedidiah, you put your name on this bullshit? Law school will cost $100,000 and take about 3 years as a full-time student and may include an internship. The exams are a small barrier. Also, there are only so many schools accredited. Among major professions, only doctors have more limitation of competition.

Re:Hidden subject

[C0rinthian]

If there was ever a live action Futurama movie, that pirate hunter guy would be a perfect Zap Brannigan.

Not that I've seen it or anything...

Re:Hidden subject

[demonlapin]

OT, the drug use question depends on specialty. I'm an anesthesiologist, so I ask about cocaine/crack, methamphetamine, ecstasy, PCP, and heroin/morphine/OxyContin. The first three will make you dead if I don't know about them. The last two I just use to estimate doses.

And I always preface it with: "I'm not the cops, and I don't really care, but I have to know."

Re:Hidden subject

[trolltalk.com]

Comparing doctors and lawyers? Come on, doctors bury their mistakes (which means no mo' money) - lawyers just make more money from their mistakes by billing for the inevitable appeal.

I'd rather have a doctor arguing a case in court than a lawyer operating on me any day.

Re:Hidden subject

[ClamIAm]

how many rule #34 of rule #34 are needed to stack overflow reality?

For the average person, you usually don't even make it to the recursive case...

Re:Hidden subject

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't question the money my doctor will make when he sticks needles in my eye tomorrow. He has the training and experience to do the job. I also didn't question the money I paid my divorce attorney when I was divorced...

why not let your ex poke needles in your eye? I bet he/she would do it for a lot less money...

Re:Hidden subject

[cpt kangarooski]

Lawyer records are similarly protected, except that a lawyer has an ethical obligation to report an ongoing crime (eg if his client tells him he plans to kill the informant).

Actually, it depends on the ethical rules in the jurisdiction. For example, in my jurisdiction, I can choose to disclose that kind of information if I want to, but I am not obligated to. Obligatory disclosures here are extremely limited, and are generally meant to ensure that the attorney himself does not participate in the crime that the client is perpetrating. Perjury by the client is the typical example: if the client is perjuring himself, the attorney has to try to withdraw from the case (or not take the case -- at what stage this occurs is a factor), and must make very carefully limited disclosures only to the extent necessary to manage the withdrawal without causing prejudice against the client.

OTOH, if I were to learn of misconduct by another attorney or a judge, I would have to report that.

I suspect that there is similar variation in the standards for patient confidentiality in the medical field, but I don't know.

Re:Hidden subject

[cpt kangarooski]

Eye surgery from Doctor Odin? Well, I'd suggest confirming with him that the procedure will make you extra wise. And frankly, I wouldn't suggest bothering with runes.

Re:Hidden subject

[clintonogamy]

Sounds almost as useless as porn via braille. eww....

Re:Hidden subject

[JosKarith]

Considering the All-father's last attempt at eye surgery you might want to think that one out again.

Re:Hidden subject

[owlicks58]

While, as a law student, I completely agree with this sentiment, I think you're missing a major point. You're not only paying a lawyer to interpret and apply the law, you're also paying a lawyer (much like a surgeon) to take on a great deal of liability. The consequences of legal proceedings jeopardize citizens' most basic rights of life and liberty; as such, one would be foolish to not hire a non-biased third party who deals with the court system on a daily basis. The old saying "Only a fool has himself as a client" is as true today as it was a hundred years ago.

Re:Hidden subject

[sm62704]

The object of having needles stuck in my wyw was to prevent blindness, not cause it. However, I'm sure she would be more than happy to poke needles in my eye.

The surgery went well, the after-surgery treatment is a bitch.

Re:Hidden subject

[sm62704]

I never asked him, but I've wondered if his name had anything to do with his choice of majors. And not having surgery for a detached retina would be quite UNWISE as it leads to complete and irreversable blindness in the affected eye. The surgery went well but there's still danger of blindness...

Re:Hidden subject

[jedidiah]

Training for any reasonably well paying job will require college and an internship.
This isn't a problem merely limited to Law. You will have to go through the same
bullshit as a teacher or an engineer.

College in general is expensive. If you are an idiot, you will pay more money
for a less well regarded school. This also is not merely limited to Law.

Pat yourself on the back. You've just discovered that college isn't cheap.

Re:Hidden subject

[sm62704]

He traded his eye for wisdom if wikipedia is to be believed. Besides, it's a little late now, the surgery was last Thursday. "Warning: Gas Bubble In Eye Use of nitrous oxide or change in atmospheric pressure may cause an increase in IOP resulting in blindness. Contact ophmatologist on reverse side of this bracelet before treatment".

I have to keep my head down 50 minutes out of every hour until the nitrogen bubble is gone. I see Dr Odin again next Monday.

My neck and back are killing me.

No evidence

[Merls the Sneaky]

All the so called evidence the RIAA has would be circumstantial. Just because a particular computer was at a particular IP address does not mean a particular individual was responsible for the infringement. I certainly hope they are fully successful.

Re:No evidence

[timmarhy]

it's even worse because an IP doesn't mean you even have the computer.

Re:No evidence

[Kierthos]

For colleges, this is especially true. What if the IP is for a computer in a classroom or lab? Oh look, suddenly, it's gone from 1 or 2 possible students using a dorm room computer, to potentially hundreds of students having access. (There are/were several computer labs at the university I went to which were open to anyone, and several others where you only needed to know the door code to get in, and they were remarkably simple to learn.)

Re:No evidence

[ari_j]

"Circumstantial" does not mean any of the following, about evidence: (1) inadmissible; (2) insufficient to prove a fact in court; or (3) unreliable. You can be convicted of murder based on nothing but circumstantial evidence, if it is strong enough. Otherwise, murderers who hide their victims' bodies the best could not be convicted. And the RIAA only has to prove infringement by a preponderance of the evidence, a much lower standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt as required for a criminal conviction.

This is about the RIAA's abuse of the discovery process and, in particular, its filing lawsuits for the sole purpose of collecting evidence through discovery. You personally can't just send me interrogatories without having a pending lawsuit against me, and you also can't file a lawsuit whose only purpose is to allow you to send me interrogatories. And that's what the RIAA is apparently doing, rampantly.

Re:No evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:No evidence

[bennomatic]

But... there was that episode of the Brady Bunch where Bobby thought Cindy had stolen his piggy bank based on circumstantial evidence, and Mike told him that was wrong. You all know the one... Bobby called it "circumspecial".

And the idea that it was wrong was reinforced by the fact that it turned out that the dog had taken it--as well as Cindy's doll--and buried it in the back yard. Thus, the Brady precedent was set, and circumspecial evidence is not and shall never be admissible in court, in my mind.

Ah, television. You give so much and ask for so little in return!

Re:No evidence

[ari_j]

From a comment on this story by NewYorkCountryLawyer:

The discovery issue ... is that it's never proper to bring a lawsuit in federal court for the purpose of obtaining discovery. The "John Doe" cases are definitely brought for that purpose, because they are immediately dropped after the RIAA gets the information it was looking for. I.e., it is a pre-action discovery proceeding [which is not authorized under the Federal Rules] masquerading as a copyright infringement proceeding. (Emphasis supplied.) That's what I was referring to, as indicated by what I wrote as the antecedent to the "that" you quoted me on.

Re:No evidence

[jedidiah]

Well no...

They have reason to believe that some computer at some IP address
was doing something nefarious. They can't necessarily link this
IP address to a particular computer even, nevermind a particular
person.

Intent is difficult to establish.

Merchants don't have to go on fishing expeditions to demonstrate
that someone may be a shoplifter. They have PIs, videotape and
onsite electronic detection devices.

Re:No evidence

[jedidiah]

Circumstantial evidence is much like concluding that mice are made from wool and wheat.

Re:No evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, nopers.

They don't have this vague sense of evil that you're painting. They have logs that IP address 11.11.11.11 was downloading/uploading a file clearly labeled with the name of protected intellectual property, property protected by the parties in the complaint. They also know that the university, which provides the IP addresses has information on which computer was using what line. Intent is not difficult to establish in these cases. People are presumed to understand the consequences of their actions. This isn't a situation where it's easy to accidentally violate the rules.... oh crap I was downloading Linux ISOs but wasn't paying attention and downloaded Brittany Spears - Toxic.mp3. I was doing my doctorate on Areswarez but had to download and test software I didn't have a right to in order to test it.

Maybe a shoplifter is a bad analogy. How about a mugger? You don't know what the guy's name is, but you know how to find him, what he looks like (thanks to his IP address) and proof he was where he was when he was doing it.

The merchants are using the analogue versions of the RIAA methods. How do you suggest they protect their intellectual property rights, if not by monitoring and collecting IP addresses and access dates of people doing what they're not supposed to with property that's not theirs? Are you suggesting that the only way they can go after someone for violating their rights is if that person, while illegally downloading and uploading the materials, sign and mail in an affidavit that they're violating the law? ::Que the people suggesting that they should just give up all legal protections for their property, and thus there's no crime... just like there'd be no theft if we all owned everything equally.::

It's even easier to prove that someone is violating intellectual property rights... they have your ip downloading/uploading their IP, they know your ISP has records of you using that number, at that time, and your ISP knows not to protect you for your stupid actions which is why they turn over those numbers and addresses so quick.

Oh, and can we finally put a nail in this tacky "you can't tell who an IP address belongs to!" argument? Yeah, there's always an error rate but for Pete's sake, their pleading goes on to talk about how an IP address is practically an SSN and that the IP address is basically the gateway to finding out someone's e-mail address, their home, their mother's name... there's pleading in the alternative alright, but this is just contrary. They're arguing (read the pleadings) that the IP addresses are sacrosanct and such precious information, but their defense is that IP addresses are useless in terms of figuring out who is who?

Re:No evidence

[cpt kangarooski]

Intent is not difficult to establish in these cases.

Intent is irrelevant. Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense; mens rea is not a factor at all.

How do you suggest they protect their intellectual property rights

Oh, I'm not very interested in that side of things. I think that the better answer is to create an exception to copyright so that natural persons acting noncommercially can do anything, and it isn't infringing. The copyright holders still have copyrights, it's just that fewer things are copyright infringements.

Que the people suggesting that they should just give up all legal protections for their property, and thus there's no crime... just like there'd be no theft if we all owned everything equally.::

It's 'cue,' not 'que.' And the thing is, I recall Prohibition, where people suggested that a good way to get rid of the crimes of making, distributing, possessing, and consuming alcohol, as well as much of the criminal activity that was supported by people who violated the Prohibition laws, was to make alcohol legal once again. As it happens, it worked pretty well. Sometimes, when social norms and the law are in disagreement, the norms need to change, as happened in the civil rights movement; but usually, it's the law that has to change, since the law should serve the people, including their norms of behavior. Most people do not find noncommercial infringements by natural persons to be unacceptable. Lacking any very good reason to act contrary to that, the law should comply with those norms. OTOH, most people do somehow manage to distinguish copyright from the unrelated fields of real and personal property, and can support reform in the former and nevertheless be content with the latter. Go figure!

Re:No evidence

[MacWiz]

Maybe a shoplifter is a bad analogy. How about a mugger?

A mugger who takes everything you own, but you still have it.

The merchants are using the analogue versions of the RIAA methods.

They arrest everyone that looks at a CD?

Oh, and can we finally put a nail in this tacky "you can't tell who an IP address belongs to!" argument?

That's not the argument. You may be able to tell who an IP address belongs to, but that doesn't tell you which computer was used. There's this thing called a router...

for Pete's sake, their pleading goes on to talk about...there's pleading in the alternative alright, but this is just contrary.

That's pretty funny.

They're arguing (read the pleadings) that the IP addresses are sacrosanct and such precious information, but their defense is that IP addresses are useless in terms of figuring out who is who?

You don't quite understand how the whole legal thing works, do you?

There is a law that says schools can't give out certain student information. The fact that IP addresses are worthless in identifying anything other than a building is a separate issue.

Nice try. Thanks for playing.

Re:No evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, you don't get the law do you? If there's a law saying the school can't give out information and the school gives out information that means the SCHOOL is violating the law. Nice try, but don't go into the profession till you figure out how laws work.

Also, the law itself says schools can give out the information pursuant to court order. Hello subpoena. No violation. You're 2 for 2 with legal analysis.

The whole minimizing argument that transmitting illegal files is basically no more than "looking" at a CD is a fallacious argument. Even if it did boil down to that, you know what, sneaking into a theater to look at a movie is illegal because you don't have that right. Opening up a CD in th store and playing it in your CD player is illegal (unless you're going to argue that the crime there is in destruction of cellophane.) As for copying and distributing music illegally? Yeah, there's actual laws against that too.

There's this thing called a router, and this thing called a contract and most ISP contracts have a convenient clause saying you're not going to share your bandwidth using a router, and that's why they charge extra to come in and set up wireless and password your connection. Of course you may set up your own, but then the argument is you're smart enough to set your house up for wireless, but not smart enough to protect your connection? Besides, the problem with knowing who an IP address belongs to is that then you know who is facilitating the crime. Just because you're not liable for the material transmitted doesn't mean you don't have to take steps to prevent it from being used illegally. Me going into your bathroom and planning a murder doesn't make you an accessory, but if you've got damn good reason to know I'm planning a murder you know you're on the hook too you're on the hook. Let's assume the ISP doesn't have any good reason to know there's infringement? Then they still need to cooperate with the court in protecting the rights of others. In the murder case, you'd have to answer questions about what you saw me bring in, come in and heard me say. In a contract case, you'd be subpoenaed to answer questiosn about why I broke the contract. The law has always and will always require that someone with information about breaking the law will have to comply with efforts to protect the rights of others.

You seem to be going on "well, there's this reason why this crime isn't exactly like a historical crime, thus it's not a crime." Which is funny because you don't think a follow-up can be made. How about a mugger who looks at your social security number, your drivers license, your home address, your family photos and then leaves? Oh, ID theft? They haven't USED your information so there's no harm... it's just like they looked at your information.

People who say to others "you don't understand how this woks" BUT don't try to explain often don't know how it works either, but it's easier to hint and pretend they do.

Re:No evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

"Intent is irrelevant... Blah blah blah mens rea blah blah blah strict liability blah blah blah." I can't believe you got modded up to 5 for that. Actually, I can believe it.

If you're an IANAL posting legalese because you think it proves your point, then stop.
If you're really a lawyer, then you need to learn how to research, and I hope every one of your clients deserts you en masse because otherwise, they're going to have to waste a lot of time suing you for malpractice.

17 USCS 506
"506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal infringement.
(1) In general. Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18 [18 USCS 2319], if the infringement was committed--
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution."

So, long story short: you are 100% absolutely wrong. Intent "willfully infringes" is KEY to this area. It is not strict liability. You lose. You are as wrong as you can be. You demonstrated a complete and total lack of any understanding of the law in this area.

And I love your argument: Take away the rights of someone to protect their property, don't worry about providing an alternative, make what is currently a crime not a crime and boom, the problem is solved. The only way to stop the current litigation and all the discovery it entails is to provide an alternative that still protects the same rights the parties currently have.

cue v. que... wow... even if you're 100% wrong with legal theory at least you nit-picked poor spelling/possible typos.

You don't recall prohibition. Prohibition was in the 1920s. You were most likely (but I can't be sure) not alive then. Or anytime near then. And if you were, you were probably not old enough to "recall" it. You "recall" history written by the winning side.

You also don't recall that prior to Prohibition, making, distributing, etc, alcohol was not illegal. You had the right to make it. Enough people said "I don't like the rights those people have to make alcohol... it's wrong and it leads to other problems" that the government TOOK THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM THEM. The result? Bootleggers and others resulted in criminal activity to keep doing what they'd always done, and what they had the right to do before enough people stepped in to say they shouldn't have that right. What happened in the end? People realized that those rights should be protected and they were.

Prohibition supports the position that you can't just take some away someone's rights because they're just going to do more and more questionable things to protect that right (ie, collecting more and more information in a more and more questionable manner, root kits).

The Civil Rights movement is also a bad example in that it was not about making the laws support changing social norms. You see, the social norms were segregation, forcing Rosa to the back of the bus and all that. The government had to step in to say "I don't care that this kind of behavior flies in your area, you're going to let this girl walk into this formerly white school and I'm putting the army here to make sure she gets in safe." It's also likely that you don't recall the civil rights movement, but it's more plausible that you were alive then than during prohibition.

The most people support argument has no basis. It's your opinion. You support this by surrounding yourself with people who support your opinion. Going back to your civil rights example, if you're in the KKK and you hang around other KKK aficionados, then yeah, you're going to think that most people support support your positions.

And yeah, it's cute that you're trying to play up the "copyright is so different than real or personal property" but you're showing that you don't understand the fundamentals of law, like you also

Re:No evidence

[cpt kangarooski]

So, long story short: you are 100% absolutely wrong. Intent "willfully infringes" is KEY to this area.

Well, no. The earlier poster, and I, were both talking about civil copyright infringement, not criminal. The relevant civil statute is 17 USC 504; it's a strict liability statute. Naturally, I did know that there is also a criminal statute, and that it does require willfulness, but it's irrelevant for these RIAA suits.

And I love your argument: Take away the rights of someone to protect their property, don't worry about providing an alternative, make what is currently a crime not a crime and boom, the problem is solved.

Thanks, I like it too. Although I didn't really address criminal liability, I would decriminalize copyright infringement altogether. Patent infringement isn't a crime, and trademark infringement was only just recently criminalized (which also is a bad idea, IMO), so why should copyright infringement be? It's better as a civil matter. If copyright holders care, they can pursue infringers, and if not, they don't. Likewise, public money isn't spent on what is essentially a very private matter, and no great threat to public safety or order.

Prohibition supports the position that you can't just take some away someone's rights because they're just going to do more and more questionable things to protect that right (ie, collecting more and more information in a more and more questionable manner, root kits).

Well, no, not really. I don't think that anyone felt that we should repeal Prohibition in order to excuse gangsters from not only bootlegging, but also from bribery, murder, jury tampering, etc. Rather, it was because Prohibition was meant to promote morality, and wound up doing basically the exact opposite of that. While it is possible to use the law as a tool to alter social norms -- the norms of the Civil Rights era were generally pro-racism and segregation, and the law deliberately fought against that, as I said earlier -- it isn't something that should be done lightly. In the case of Prohibition, while it might have been possible to use the law to force people to go teetotal, there wasn't the will, and really, there shouldn't've been.

What is copyright like? Is it like Prohibition, a law with a noble purpose that is widely flouted and widely seen as too pointless to enforce against an unwilling populace? Or is it like desegregation laws, which have an especially noble purpose, but were strongly opposed, yet seen by very many to be worth fighting for to the death, and which were rooted in our values and ideals?

I think it's like Prohibition. Copyright is a decent idea, but not so supremely important that we should pursue it even when virtually no one respects it as it is typically applied. As with Prohibition leading to not just violations of the law in question, but also more important laws (e.g. laws against murder, jury tampering, etc.), there is a real risk of people becoming so fed up with copyright as it directly impacts them (e.g. banning mere file sharing) that they become opposed to copyright laws regarding commercial piracy, or the idea of copyright altogether.

The most people support argument has no basis. It's your opinion.

Maybe, but I am a copyright lawyer, and I've been interested in this field for a long time before I started practicing in it. I've observed not only people who are active in calling for copyright reform, but also ordinary folks who I know (family members, friends, other social acquaintances, etc.) that don't really pay much thought to copyright. My impression has been that while most people support copyright to some extent, they don't think that it really does, or should, limit their own behavior. That is, AFAICT, an average person will be opposed to commercial pirates printing up a bunch of counterfeit DVDs and selling them, but they don't see anything really bad about downloading the same movie over Bit Torrent, much less copying the movie directly from a friend, or ripping the mo

Re:No evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... for a copyright lawyer you are horrible. Like, you need to be disbarred. Lets go to the civil statute then. The one that says:

"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of
proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed
willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of
statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case
where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court
finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to
believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of
copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of
statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall
remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed
and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of
the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the
infringer was:"

Long story short: INTENT IS RELEVANT IN COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT. Even under 504. Intent determines whether you're liable for $200 or $150,000. Intent to distribute pursuant to fair use does not equal intent to distribute for piracy reasons.

A real lawyer knows that even in the strictest of strict liability cases, there's still an aspect of intent. Statutory rape: it doesn't matter if your intent was to screw an underage girl (or boy in states where the law is gender neutral), all that matters is you slept with them before they hit the age of consent. But if you intended to sleep with an of age girl, did everything you could to make sure she was of age, asked her mother for god's sake and there was no question that she was 18, until after the fact when she said she's really 17. Or lets say you're in one of those non-gender neutral states so you decided to enjoy a boy of probably 18, but not grilling them like you would a girl because you know it's only statutory for a girl. That's when you find out the boy had a sex change at 16, or was born hermaphroditic but kept the male sex organs. The speed limit is strict liability (your state may vary) and the crime is going more than 55, 65, 30, 40, whatever is posted. BUT, most courts will accept a dozen different defenses based on intent (I thought I was going the speed limit, but my speedometer was broken, I was intended to speed yes but I was intending to speed in order to stop my son from possibly violating the law by having potentially underage sex with a hermaphrodite.)

Learn the law you claim to know. Oh my. I'm very afraid right now that people like you are practicing.

I could nitpick the rest (where did I say that there are only two rights? Create and protect?) but I'm seriously scared right now for the state of the law... like ready to throw up that people like you calim to be lawyers.

Re:No evidence

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, you did catch me making a blunder. I cited 17 USC 504, which deals with computing damages, not with determining liability. Mea culpa. The correct statute is section 501, which is the strict liability statute. I really don't know what I was thinking.

Still, to fully correct my mis-cite, I should point out that the mens rea in section 504 does not mean that civil copyright infringement is not a strict liability statute. 504, again, deals with the amount of money awarded; a whole different kettle of fish. So while an infringer's mental state is irrelevant for determining whether or not he is liable, it may sometimes be relevant for determining how much he will owe as a result.

Of course, it is largely up to the plaintiff, whether or not the defendant's mental state will ever be relevant. If the plaintiff opts for actual damages and profits, instead of statutory damages, mens rea is irrelevant. If the plaintiff ignores the money altogether (perhaps he just wants an injunction), then mens rea is irrelevant. And if the plaintiff only seeks the absolute minimum amount (currently $750 in the vast majority of cases; other prerequisites must be met to lower it to the $200 limit, and it is highly unlikely in an RIAA case. See 17 USC 401(d) for why.), then mens rea is irrelevant since the "innocence" of the defendant can't make it go lower, and thus isn't examined at all. RIAA has been known to do this, IIRC, in order to remove issues that could perhaps make it in front of a jury sympathetic to the defendant.

Anyway, 501, not 504, for the elements of civil copyright infringement. In my defense, I was posting at around 1 a.m., after a long day and a nice party.

Incidentally, I fear that you, like many laypeople, think that lawyers get sanctioned or disbarred trivially. We don't. You'd have to really screw up in an amazingly bad way for that to happen. Usually it involves malfeasance, and the most reliable method is to steal money from a client. Stating a correct point of law, or even doing so with a mis-cite, here on Slashdot, would simply not register at all, absent perhaps some really bizarre circumstances that I can't even imagine at the moment.

Re:No evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm... so there's no intent in 501, but can the lawyer explain why? Because 501 says that violating the rights spelled out in another section of the law are copyright infringments. And what is a violation of those other sections of the law? Oh, yeah, intent based. Saying "if you do _this_ you're breaking the law", and then listing numerous ways in which the intent determines whether you're doing _this_ means intent.

There's a reason why anyone with half a brain can see you leave a whole trail of incorrect legal bullshit all over the internet Josh. It's because you're not using a full brain when you post. There's a reason almost every single legal argument you get into involves you saying "I'm a lawyer" someone else saying you don't know shit and then pointing out how wrong you are, and then you continuing to debate long after it's stopped being funny.

I know exactly how hard it is to be disbarred, and I in no way suggested you should be disbarred for a mis-cite on slashdot. No, I suggested that you shouldn't have been allowed a license because you show no competence (thankfully copyright isn't a huge bar topic) and that you will surely fuck over many clients in your lifetime if you have not already fucked them over.

Hopefully next time you look at a law you'll do it sober. So Josh, you never said what firm you work for so we can call your boss.

Re:No evidence

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, although my normal policy is to continue to discuss issues with anyone for so long as they're willing, and we're both able to, I think I'll decline here. If we were ever having a civilized discussion on this subject, it seems to me that you're not holding up your side now. You're not supporting your position -- particularly in the context of RIAA file sharing suits, which was the topic at hand -- and you're getting into attacking me personally, which is interesting, as you're doing so anonymously. You're free to, of course, and I defend your right to do so, but I do find it distasteful, especially with my pseudonymity having been brought into play. On the plus side, I can be pretty sure that I am not acquainted with you offline.

Against my better judgment, and with the caveat that I won't bother to read it or respond to it, let me ask you to answer a simple question directly, and with specific citations: Alice creates a nondramatic musical work and a sound recording of that work, registers their copyrights, and publishes them in the form of phonorecords. While the works remain in term, and lacking any sort of license, Bob then rips a copy of the phonorecord to his computer, and offers the files for others to download from him. Carol downloads the files from Bob to her own computer. Did Bob and/or Carol infringe Alice's copyrights? If so, would their mens rea matter? Again, if you answer, and I'd like it if you did, please precisely cite the relevant authority re: mental state, and which level of mental state, e.g. willfulness, recklessness, etc., is the least required.

Re:No evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You're not making any sense. Josh Stratton your psuedonymity has never been brought into issue. You post all over the internet on many copyright forums and each time, you are shot down time and again because you misapply the law. When you get frustrated, your responses become "meh" and "no, I don't like that." You brought your expertise into the conversation by throwing your arms up and saying "I'm a lawyer, I'm right" and so I don't believe anyone would have any problem with a discussion of your credentials, which so far consist of you claiming to be a lawyer (and lots of proof to the contrary on the internet... you're probably just a JD who thinks he's a lawyer. They tend to get a lot wrong.)

Then you say you're not going to read this but you want it answered. I look forward to your response, which will apparently be ignored (and I love that because then I can cut loose and not worry about you coming back... except for you will and then say "well, I never said I wouldn't respond, just that I wasn't going to)

Interesting problems for students

[adpsimpson]

When I was studying Engineering, the most interesting case studies were the real life cases - actual original research and current theories.

Similarly here, these students seem to have a deparment which values them enough to give them something interesting AND useful to work on.

Good on them all.

Re:Interesting problems for students

[Technician]

When I was studying Engineering, the most interesting case studies were the real life cases - actual original research and current theories.

I wonder if many of the engineering students have figured out that an Ubuntu Live CD and a USB hard drive leave no fingerprints on a computer. There are no deleted files. They never existed. DHCP with temporary leases and an editable MAC addresses finish out the playing card. Some networks will allow www through their proxy but not the campus network without a login. ;-)

Not logged in, a new MAC address and DHCP lease, + no HD writes = no cache, history, or deletions evidence. Find a good place to stash that USB drive. That's the online privacy game at it's finest.

Re:Interesting problems for students

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stash the drive?

Truecrypt, baby.

Re:Interesting problems for students

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea in theory, poor idea in practice. IP & MAC address anonymity won't help you when you leave a trail elsewhere. I work for a college in New England and we regularly receive RIAA notices -- all the MAC address and IP address shenanigans in the world don't help when Joe Student logged into BlackBoard and Webmail from the same MAC & IP address as he allegedly downloaded pirated material. And, no, the "Oh dude, I totally gave my username & password to someone else" excuse doesn't get very far in that case.

Re:Interesting problems for students

[R2.0]

"Great idea in theory, poor idea in practice. IP & MAC address anonymity won't help you when you leave a trail elsewhere. I work for a college in New England and we regularly receive RIAA notices -- all the MAC address and IP address shenanigans in the world don't help when Joe Student logged into BlackBoard and Webmail from the same MAC & IP address as he allegedly downloaded pirated material. And, no, the "Oh dude, I totally gave my username & password to someone else" excuse doesn't get very far in that case."

I think you miss the point - black operations under false identity, white operations in the clear. You ONLY use the live cd and USB drive to do "questionable" operations, and use your standard logins, etc., for everyday stuff.

Think of it another way - who here DOESN"T have a different username for boards on which you'd rather not be identified: throwaway email, fake profile info. It wouldn't fool a determined criminal investigation, but it helps avoid those embarrassing "Hey, aren't you RealCoolGuy123 over on SexWithSmallAnimalsForum.com? Never thought I'd see you here at the WhiteGuysForJesus boards!"

Re:Interesting problems for students

[Technician]

I totally gave my username & password to someone else" excuse doesn't get very far in that case.

Did you miss the part of not logging in? The MAC address is of my Linksys. Neither the laptop or desktop have any sign of filesharing. Who connected to the router at some time or other is up to the investigators. This is a leave no tracks download. You may find the router, but it doesn't keep logs. Neither did the computer. The I gave out my username isn't even an option. My excuse is I didn't download. Here is my hard drive.. Nothing is erased. There is no P-P shared folder deleted or otherwise.

Re:Interesting problems for students

[number17]

logged into BlackBoard and Webmail from the same MAC & IP address as he allegedly downloaded pirated material.

I would love to know where and how you store all of the network information for your Public Access workstations. I would also like to know why your college has not setup secure login for Blackboard and Webmail. It seems like I could walk into your school with a laptop and WireShark, plug-in to a network port, after cloning one of your MAC addresses, and sniff out some real personal information. You should also lock down the hardware and BIOS so others can't do the same with your equipment.

Re:Interesting problems for students

[Technician]

I think you miss the point - black operations under false identity

Even further.. No identity. No login of any kind anywhere. Each login can be a new DHCP lease, new MAC address, etc. Log into nothing. They may find a jack was used somewhere in a lab or conference room, coffee shop, or a dorm commons, wireless router, etc. but beyond that, the ID trail is dead.

Bit Torrent in many places doesn't require a login.

Re:Interesting problems for students

[Technician]

Why stash the drive?

Truecrypt, baby.

The live CD doesn't come with Truecrypt installed. Having a live CD modified to include Truecrypt could be incriminating and give them reason to search further. Having a stack of Live CDs that you pass out for free does not raise an eyebrow. I pass them out all the time.

In a dorm, it's easy to loan out a USB drive to have it disappear.

Re:Interesting problems for students

[houghi]

Forget about the CD. Boot from USB and use something like this or any other distribution. And for USB sticks, there are so many types available, including ones that look like Lego, Micro-SD cards or Other things so that unless they storm your house when the device is plugged in, they realy would have no idea what to look for.

Re:Interesting problems for students

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

However, what the GP fails to mention is that you shouldn't use this set-up to download illegal copies of certain files, because the more you abuse anonymity, the more people will try (and succeed) to take it away from you (and everyone).

Re:Interesting problems for students

[Symb]

Now just beat the bios password, surveillance camera, and warm body in the labs smart aleck. People solve (or beat) systems, not technology.

How about quit breaking the law (no matter how asinine the law might be) and get to studying?

Re:Interesting problems for students

[Technician]

I would love to know where and how you store all of the network information for your Public Access workstations.

Often a campus will have a Radius server. No log-in, no campus access. Often with student machines, they own them. Often the WWW is simply an auto-proxy away without a login. Boot, open browser, go to preferences, choose connections, choose proxy server, select autoproxy or if known, plug in the proxy info, close window and surf away. Start torrent.. point to USB drive. Don't log in to anything including /., email, banking, or anything on campus. Leave no trace that shows a tie to an identity. No user name, no password, zero knowledge. When done, shutdown with the power switch. No need to unmount a CD image.

Have you tried to surf your net without logging in? You may find you can find things while not logged in. Don't assume you can't surf just because of the stupid login prompt. Try it. Don't get caught.

Re:Interesting problems for students

[DMUTPeregrine]

Truecrypt the drive as well, for extra safety. There are no hidden partitions, that's just my porn/bank records/grades folder.

Re:Interesting problems for students

[Technician]

Truecrypt the drive as well, for extra safety. There are no hidden partitions, that's just my porn/bank records/grades folder.

I've never tried to Truecrypt my CD ROM drive.. Oh, I get it.. the hard drive.. Umm, no encryption and no fingerprints = no probable cause. They have no case. Any signs of encrypted when the forensic guys borrow the drive will be frowned upon and won't help your defense. No sign of hiding, tampering or file sharing is a great defense. Judge waves hand "This is not the computer you are looking for. Move along." RIAA, "This is not the computer we are looking for. Move along."

SACRIFICIAL SUICIDE!

[Anonymous Coward]

  Satanized, crucified, feel the warth of suicide
  Incus fear of the sphere, angel darkness disappears
  Covenant, blasphemous, open up unhollness
  Father Satan, let me just unholy sins

  Chorus:
  Suicide sacrifice
  Desrtuction of holy life
  Blood of unholy knife
  Satan I sacrifice

  Behold the crucifix, symbol of sterility
  I am crucifix - Satan
  Suicide sacrifice, profeasting evil night
  Lust into reality - Satan
  Angel of the black abyss, Satan lord i hall
  Insane blasphemous - Satan
  Sacrifical suicide, Ritual to end my life
  Behemoth incess my fate - Satan

  Dammed to tell, end of my life
  Warth of God - Satan
  Sin my soul, blesses with fire
  Throne of stone - Satan
  I must die, in my wake
  Seventh gate - Satan
  Suicide, end my life
  I must die - satan

  Suicide sacrifice, thrust of evil deep inside
  Lucifer never lies, take away thee mortal life
  Demigod, Satan son, commend to body to the ground
  Father Satan, I'll find peace when I am God

  (Repeat Chorus)

Those pesky students...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, it was I who falsely accused thousands of innocent people of having violated copyright. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

Re:Those pesky students...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, it was I who falsely accused thousands of guilty people of having violated copyright. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

Minor error. Don't worry, I fixed it for ya.

New Library Wing.....

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Dedicated by the RIAA in the near future at the University of Maine.....

That should get the faculty to shut up those pesky law students :)

Re:New Library Wing.....

[elrous0]

More likely, they will bribe the U.S. Congress directly to cut of federal funding for any college that doesn't bow before the RIAA. They've been trying. And with Democrats (who are owned by Hollywood) and Republicans (who are owned by big business) dominating Congress pretty much exclusively, it's quite likely they will succeed.

Re:New Library Wing.....

[sexybomber]

I don't know which is more disturbing: the fact that I would fully expect the record companies to stoop that low or the fact that such a ploy might actually work.

Re:New Library Wing.....

[Dragonslicer]

I'd love to see that happen, just so I could laugh. For those who didn't know (which I would assume is all but maybe 5 other people around here), the Maine School of Law isn't actually at the University of Maine, which is in Orono, but at the University of Southern Maine, which is in Portland. Still the state university system, but the campuses are about 150 miles apart.

Re:New Library Wing.....

[swillden]

Dedicated by the RIAA in the near future at the University of Maine.....

That should get the faculty to shut up those pesky law students :)

And encourage the faculty at other law schools to get their students involved. New RIAA endowments for everyone!

Re:New Library Wing.....

[Kierthos]

*snort* Yeah, I could actually see that happening here. The nearby law school (less then two blocks away) is trying to get a new building, only they're not doing so well at raising the money through the various means (fundraisers, getting the state to kick in some bucks, alumni donations). I could easily see them taking that path...

Re:New Library Wing.....

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! Democrats and Republicans are dominating Congress?!! Run for the hills!

Re:New Library Wing.....

[Original Replica]

Democrats and Republicans are dominating Congress?!! Run for the hills!

I got the joke, but the two party system is one of the major weaknesses of our government. It provides a barrier to entry for anyone not wanting a lifetime career in politics, because of the need to cull party favor for several years before having a chance of appearing on any ballot. Political parties at the organizational level are corporations that have direct influence over a huge percentage of our government. Congressmen should not be beholden to a group other than their constituents. Just look a how influential superdelegates are turning out to be in the presidential nominations, this hand full of people who are superdelegates hold as much or more influence over the candidates choices as do the people. They are the aristocracy, we are the commoners, this is not how it was meant to be.

Re:New Library Wing.....

[Paradise Pete]

the Maine School of Law isn't actually at the University of Maine, which is in Orono, but at the University of Southern Maine, which is in Portland.

And to follow up, that's the Portland that isn't actually in the state of Oregon.

Re:New Library Wing.....

[NormalVisual]

And to follow up, that's the Portland that isn't actually in the state of Oregon.

...and is also the town that Portland, OR is named after.

Re:New Library Wing.....

[Paradise Pete]

and is also the town that Portland, OR is named after.

Way after. like 65 years after.

Re:New Library Wing.....

[monxrtr]

I don't know about that anymore. You are starting to talk huge political downside if you start directly publicly advocating for the RIAA now (except perhaps in a few Hollywood districts). You have tons of pissed off students and tons of pissed off academic administrators who have let it be known they are very unhappy with the heavy handed RIAA techniques and threats to academic freedom. I'd say in at least 80% of political districts advocating for the RIAA would be akin to advocating for Big Tobacco. Judges don't like to be hoodwinked and humiliated either.

More and more this whole issue is threatening to blow up, and no doubt there will be massive political collateral damage if it does. Just ask the Republican Party how the Ron Paul supporters did with barely any organization and time in the political primary process. It will be a hell of a lot more targeted, organized, and effective the next time four years from now.

But let them buy all the unconstitutional laws they want. Those exact same laws can be confiscated and used against them (1 million or 10 million people can be copyright trolls for very little expense, and it could pay, just like it pays for patent trolls), and when the tide of public opinion turns, it will turn hard (they are a cast full of sleazy and greedy lawyers, executives, and overpaid artists with almost no redeeming sympathetic propaganda figures). Their propaganda campaigns arouse contempt. And an Anti-Copyright Abuse Political Action Committee might be able to raise Ron Paul amounts of money to run targeted negative ads against a list of the 20 worst bought Congressmen, and possibly defeat 50-75% of them. I could see such targeting swinging election results a good 5-10% in those districts, well enough to cause effective change. And it's an issue that can slice without regard to political party affiliation. You have a huge untapped younger voter base that is mobilizing, that would certainly go out and vote to defeat pro-RIAA candidates. And Senators up for re-election would be even easier State-wide targets.

The game is up, and everyone knows it. The RIAA is going to start sustaining a more and more egregious reputation even in sell out DC city, especially as legal abuse losses start mounting. Congressmen aren't politically stupid. Don't think they haven't noticed the rising up of student legal groups and independent academic institution mobilization. Don't think they didn't notice Comcast bend over just now on targeted throttling (even under an alleged anti-"piracy" justification).

And keep not buying or buying less music. Why should you care about any artists? Did any of those artists give the slightest damn when bribes stole away from you the contemporary limited bargain return of the advancement of arts into the public domain, even as you gave up your First Amendment free speech rights to copy and were forced to welfare subsidize their campaign of artificial monopoly scarcity greed and abuse through the resources of your government? They are all greedy fucks, wanting to milk you continuously for stuff that is 30 and 40 years old. Starve the bastards.

Rule 11

[sjbe]

In case you were wondering what Rule 11 is like I was...

Re:Rule 11

[The Second Horseman]

Geez, and here I was thinking it was 10 with just a little bit extra.

Re:Rule 11

[red_dragon]

Geez, and here I was thinking it was 10 with just a little bit extra.

These go to eleven.

Re:Rule 11

[KDR_11k]

I'd prefer to see Rule 37 used: There is no "overkill". There is only "open fire" and "I need to reload."

Re:Rule 11

[Hatta]

I'd rather see Rule 34 used.

Re:Rule 11

[deblau]

Forget wikipedia, link to the actual text.

Re:Rule 11

[KDR_11k]

I was considering it but the I thought about it the more I realized I really don't want to see that.

What a bucnh of idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[pipatron]

If you cant afford the music you cant have it.

Answer #1: Why not?

Answer #2: Since it's now free, everyone can afford it.

Answer #3: These days, you can have the music even if you can't afford it. Since they're at college to learn, they'd better spend their money on books.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging from your spelling, you didn't get very far with edumacation, did you?

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[sm62704]

How about anonymous cowards learn to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES and stop trolling?
What the hell is wrong with discussing who is downloading copyrighted material then laughing at the RIAA cunts?
If you don't have a clue you cant have it. You are at slashdot to learn and teach, not troll your fucking ass off.
Idiot.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Should you have a car if you can't afford it? You can if you steal it. Does that fact that you can make it right? Grow up and stop leeching off of others.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[228e2]

Re: to answer 1, 2 and 3. No.

Look, its seriously time to stop pretending your silly excuses are valid. I will admit I download music/vids/etc, but it IS illegal. No seriously. Yes, some music through special online, downloadable vendors are legal ways to d/l music, but Kazaa is not. Limewire is not. Stop making excuses for yourselves and those who do this. Now, i am in no means a RIAA lover, but ignoring that stealing anything is illegal is irresponsible and childish.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to any soon-to-be students: The parent is an idiot, no-one else expects you to work all your waking hours. Enjoy yourselves, it's much easier to learn that way.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[jwisser]

Talk about your bad car analogy.

Look: I take your car. Now I have a car, and you don't. I have clearly caused you harm: I have made it more difficult for you to go to work, spend time with your family, pick up groceries, and pay for a new car.

Now look again: You're sharing some music files. I download them from you. Now we both have a car... I mean, music files. I have not caused you harm- you still have your music that you (presumably) paid for. The only argument you can make is that I have caused harm to the RIAA (and those who work for it) and the artist. This may be the case, but it's not a given. If I was never going to buy that music to begin with, I haven't deprived anyone of anything. In fact, if I decide I like the music I would never have heard otherwise, I may decide to buy it somewhere down the road. I have caused no harm; I have simply gained a benefit, but not at anyone else's expense.

On the other hand, if I were planning to pay for the music, but downloaded it instead, I have denied income to the RIAA and the artist. That's pretty lousy, although a lot of people understandably have a lack of sympathy for uber-billionaire multinational corporations and their multi-billionaire hack artists. This lack of sympathy doesn't make the denial of income any less wrong; just more understandable.

You paint this out to be black and white, but in truth, this situation is extremely nuanced, and the heart of the problem is that our current laws (and the RIAA's current business model) are in no way sufficient or even relevant for it.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[pipatron]

but it IS illegal

And because it is written in the holy book it is true and shall always be.

ignoring that stealing anything is illegal is irresponsible

A copyright violation is not stealing.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[evolvearth]

That's right! Fucking ass shit! Cunts tits motherfucker! Shit slapping pantywagon cuntstick on a frog! Fucking ass shithole Barbara Streisand!

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[SimonGhent]

Barbara Streisand

There was no need for that. Apologise.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused. Should I be at /. to learn and teach, or to discuss who is downloaded copyrighted music and laugh at RIAA cunts?

Because really, they're not one and the same.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[jedidiah]

It may be "illegal". It isn't necessarily immoral or unethical.

It's all about the age of the work. There's plenty of stuff that
should be in the public domain by now but isn't because one side
of this particular social contract has decided to rewrite the
rules (much like credit card issuing banks).

The sad fact of the matter is there is now much more and better
content that should be free but isn't than there is new stuff.

This is really what the RIAA and MPAA are afraid of.

They're afraid that their flavor of the month can't stand up to John Wayne.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[sbeckstead]

Answer#1 Why Not?: This is a simple one to dismiss: Because I said so!
Answer#2 How is it free. If it is legally free then accepted, if there is a question of legality see answer #1
Answer#3 This actually is gibberish.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cant afford the music you cant have it.

Answer #1: Why not?

I can't afford a car and would like yours.

Answer #2: Since it's now free, everyone can afford it.

That's very generous of you. Leave the keys under the floormat.

Answer #3: These days, you can have the music even if you can't afford it. Since they're at college to learn, they'd better spend their money on books.

Your generosity with other people's possessions is remarkable. After all, you are entitled to them.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[sm62704]

Must... learn... to stop... BITING...

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[sm62704]

All of the above.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[das_schmitt]

If you cant afford the music you cant have it.

Yes I can :)

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If you cant afford the music you cant have it.

Answer #1: Why not?

Ever heard of the free market? If something isn't worth the price (i.e. you can't afford it), you look somewhere else for a competing product in your price range, and pay for that (which could even be free). That rewards lower prices, and so people who want to make money will tend towards a lower price. If you want free, and the market can provide, it usually will. You can find plenty of creative-commons, public-domain, or just plain free-as-in-beer music. You can't quite find as much as commercial music, because, lets face it, having everyone (or at least the majority) pay for music really helps encourage the artist.

Taking when you can't afford is understandable when talking about necessities. Taking when you can afford (just about everyone can afford a bit of music) rewards nothing but your own greed.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[JesseMcDonald]

On the other hand, if I were planning to pay for the music, but downloaded it instead, I have denied income to the RIAA and the artist. ... This lack of sympathy doesn't make the denial of income any less wrong; just more understandable.

Apply the same reasoning to this situation as you did elsewhere. You have indeed "denied income" to the RIAA, but that is not the same thing as harming them. For example, if you started up a competing label then you have "denied income" to the RIAA's member labels by getting some people to buy from you instead of them. Invalidating someone else's future expectations, however well or badly founded, is not wrong per se; it can contribute to one's liability, but only if it is the result of actual harm. For example, if you cripple someone you can become liable for their future income, but if you instead out-compete them and are awarded their job you own them nothing, despite having denied them the same amount of future income.

Re:What a bucnh of idiots

[Wordplay]

I always thought a better analogy would be something like:

I own a lake. I charge admission to go swimming in my lake, which is otherwise not fenced-in or restricted in any way. At night, while I'm asleep, you go swimming in my lake.

Outside the obvious (and irrelevant) issue of trespass, do you owe me money?

There are some things you can say:

* It's stupid to not fence in a lake, and expect nobody to go swimming in it. Unfortunately, that ends up being an argument for DRM.

* Lakes should be free for everyone to swim in. Obviously, we have plenty of precedent for controlling access to "enjoyment" of a source that would cost the same to maintain and run regardless of the number of participants (movie theaters, for a simple example).

* This analogy is stupid. I'm not sure that it is. A media license and an admission work in much the same way, with much the same purpose.

The fact is that the RIAA's entire business model depends on most people paying admission. That certainly doesn't excuse their current tactics, which are reprehensible.

However, anyone with a level of personal responsibility and objectivity has to recognize that if you break an existing business model by not playing the game, the business model will change. In this case, the cultural shift towards file-sharing was damned near instantaneous in industry terms, so all the changes have been heavily reactive: draconian DRM, litigation, etc.

I hope the RIAA goes down in flames. I also hope a general understanding is gained by the public that widespread casual media piracy, whether you think it's right or wrong, will throw the status quo out the window when it becomes notable enough (and it probably already has).

What we get in return may or may not be better. We can get better shopkeepers, maybe, but any media distribution business model is going to have to rely either on honor (legally enforced or otherwise) or external restrictions like DRM. Take your pick.

Not only that

[Anonymous Coward]

There's been a number of movements against the *iaa. I particuarly like the third group in the list.

RIAA is Slashdot's new SCO

[cplusplus]

It seems like we see a new RIAA related story every day.

Re:RIAA is Slashdot's new SCO

[Mantaar]

As long as they suffer the same sort of demise SCO has suffered in the end - I don't really mind.

Besides, RIAA gives us plenty of reason to bitch about them, as long as they do, I actually want to stay informed. I'd be glad to see a rapid decline in bitch-against-RIAA-stories on /. and reddit, but only because that would go hand in hand with a decrease in corruption and braindeadtivity on the MAFIAA's side.

Re:RIAA is Slashdot's new SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Looking forward to see these stories tagged: diealready

Re:RIAA is Slashdot's new SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

>It seems like we see a new RIAA related story every day.
And why not? This issue attracts all the newbies and wannabes: With a real, honest-to-goodness *lawyer* giving Slashdot the play by play, it makes them feel as though copyright infringement is justified.

Which, of course, you'd never hear NewYorkCountryLawyer say.

His point, and the point of these lawsuits, is to force the RIAA to obey the law while trying to bring cases against accused copyright infringers - something that is a good idea, I think.

But they in no way make copyright infringement legal, nor OK, no matter how much rationalization happens here.

And, finally, and most importantly to the "editors" here: It generates revenue for Slashdot. The more the kiddiez gnash their teeth about "teh evil MAFIAA", the more money they make, something that I find endlessly amusing.

we would have gotten away with it...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if it wasn't for those meddling kids!

Talk about a quality law school

[unity100]

im a foreigner, dont know us law, and even i have understood what they were suing against, and what they were going to use.

you dont need to have a big name to be a good law school. you just need quality students, and encouraging teachers.

If RIAA wins all these cases

[bravo369]

Then they will have too much power to continue these actions. On the flip side, constantly fighting these cases in court is not what RIAA wants to do. They want it settled and out of the way as soon as possible. Hopefully law students in each state all take up this cause pro bono. I say law students because they probably will be most likely to fight pro bono and save the defendants money but also they will probably fight as hard as anyone against the RIAA. Imagine putting that on your resume after law school...that you successfully brought down the RIAA.

Re:If RIAA wins all these cases

[MarkvW]

Lawyers are very much like football coaches in at least one respect. When one thing works, everybody copies it to death. If the RIAA gets slammed for abusive discovery processes in Maine, other lawyers will try to play the same game elsewhere. Rule 11 means that the abusive litigant (or their lawyer) has to pay money - - sometimes LOTS of money. Rule 11 sanctions have the power to strike fear into the heart of lawyers. The RIAA will have to change their game if they lose. I can't imagine Congress wading in to help them because the procedural rules represent a careful balancing of competing considerations--twisting them up to help one particular kind of litigant in one particular kind of case would really upset the applecart.

Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here come the cavalry!

A Generation Against Them

[mbrod]

The RIAA is creating a whole generation of enemies by going after College students. Their demise can't happen soon enough.

Re:A Generation Against Them

[garcia]

The RIAA is creating a whole generation of enemies by going after College students. Their demise can't happen soon enough.

That's what the hippy's thought in the 1960s with free love, drug law reform, and peace. Look at that generation now...

Re:A Generation Against Them

[compro01]

which is why these things need to be done quickly, before this generation becomes used to the way things are.

Re:A Generation Against Them

[mbrod]

I can quite easily choose to stop giving any money whatsoever to the RIAA. I can't stop paying my taxes if I disagree with policy.

Re:A Generation Against Them

[mgblst]

If only the world wasn't so god damn apathetic, we might have something. Most people don't care, and to be honest, there are a lot more important things for most people to worry about. It is quite a luxurious position in, to care about something that doesn't actually kill you.

Re:A Generation Against Them

[CodeBuster]

What about the members of the RIAA? The music labels deserve their share of the blame for supporting the RIAA with their membership dues. The RIAA exists in part so that their members can act behind the scenes as part of an organization that shields them from the direct wrath of activists, bad PR, and the possible sanctions associated with questionable legal tactics. The RIAA is a contemptible and possibly corrupt organization ala RICO, but let us not forget the labels who stand behind the RIAA and approve of it's actions by continuing to pay their membership dues.

Re:A Generation Against Them

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

A few good decisions from judges would shut the whole thing down.

Re:A Generation Against Them

[Thomasje]

That's what the hippy's thought in the 1960s with free love, drug law reform, and peace. Look at that generation now... Hmmm... Seems to me that the hippies were brought down in the end because they were too confident they would win; they underestimated just how much The Establishment hated them, and how far it would go in terms of character assassination, and repression by law and in the workplace. The sheeple cheered as the Benevolent Corporations kicked the hippies' collective ass, threw it in jail, or sent it to Vietnam.

I think public perception of the Benevolent Corporations has changed a bit since then, though. Too many of the abuses and criminal conspiracies, that the flower children accused the establishment of, have actually proved to be true, and the establishment isn't helping its cause by allowing CEOs to rake in astronomical pay packages while simultaneously transferring jobs to China.

Just because Bob Dylan was premature when he said that the times were a-changin', doesn't mean such predictions will always be wrong. All it takes is for the establishment to alienate enough people, and the way Big Corporate has been behaving during the last 20-odd years, that kind of critical mass just might be closer than you think. The fact that people like Michael Moore and Barack Obama are enjoying mainstream success is something I wouldn't have expected 10 years ago.

Re:A Generation Against Them

[Maxo-Texas]

The hippies got tired of being poor. The hippies got property and money and became the system they were fighting.

I got tired of being poor at about 31. It was fun til then. But as my buds took off, it became lonely/mostly losers. When they all go off for a $600 trip and you can't afford it, you change friends or get with the program. In my case, I was in college all along but it put a real fire under my ass to finish and get a "real job" tm.

Now I have the house, car, etc.. Fight to keep my taxes low... work a regular 40 (and after a recent promotion often voluntarily a regular 43-45).

Re:A Generation Against Them

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree we should all.. well we should do something... I guess.

Oh look.. a butterfly!

Re:A Generation Against Them

[dogmatixpsych]

To quote Ben Folds:

"Stan: Once you wanted revolution
Stan: Now you're the institution
Stan: How's it feel to be the man?"

Re:A Generation Against Them

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Seems to me that the hippies were brought down in the end because... I'm not buying into your, and the parent post's, generalizations about 'hippies'. Not all of us were into "drugs" etc. And I don't know what evidence you have that we were ever "brought down". We brought the Vietnam war to an end, implemented integration, changed social mores, had a huge impact on culture, have occupied the Presidency, and, in general, brought our values with us into the ensuing decades, and into every walk of life and every part of society in which we live and work.

So I beg to differ. We grew up, to be sure, as all people do. But we were not "brought down".

Re:A Generation Against Them

[Anonymous Coward]

A few good decisions from the people stealing (semantics) shit they have no right to would prevent them from being sued at all.

All fixed.

Re:A Generation Against Them

[Anonymous Coward]

A few good decisions from the people stealing (semantics) shit they have no right to would prevent them from being sued at all.

You clearly have no clue about the legal meaning of the word "stealing". Hint: dispossession.

Re:A Generation Against Them

[Anonymous Coward]

A few good decisions from the people stealing (semantics) shit they have no right to would prevent them from being sued at all.

You clearly have no clue about the legal meaning of the word "stealing". Hint: dispossession.

You clearly have no reading comprehension skills. It's all semantics, you fucking dope!!

Don't tell me you're stupid enough to believe that since it is not technically "stealing", it therefore must be perfectly legal. Then you also must be stupid enough to believe that since it can't be proven that god doesn't exist, therefore he must exist.

GET OFF THIS FUCKING SITE UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!

Re:A Generation Against Them

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Quick! Before they evaluate their position rationally! Get them to sue! Get them to sue!

Re:A Generation Against Them

[dwye]

> That's what the hippy's thought in the 1960s
> with free love, drug law reform, and peace.
> Look at that generation now...

1) They never tried to reform any drug laws; at best, they ignored them; in cases, they prompted them.

2) I would point out that Bills Gates and Clinton, GWB, and Hillary are all of that generation, just not of the group that tried to see just how far they could take drug use before hitting the wall.

Re:A Generation Against Them

[himi]

Word.

(not that I am or ever have been a hippie, but anyone claiming that they lost or that they sold out has no understanding of the /insanely/ enormous social and cultural changes that have happened in the last fifty years)

himi

Re:A Generation Against Them

[KefabiMe]

unfortunately, many college students don't even realize there was ever any other way.

Cantenna and a wireless router in the library!

[mlwmohawk]

Using a cantenna, the "smart" students should aim the directional wifi to their dorms and surf on the library IP address. That would be funny. Then the university would HAVE to defend itself against this nonsense instead of throwing its students under the wheels.

Re:Cantenna and a wireless router in the library!

[notorious ninja]

How would that be any different? Most/all universities (or at least all of the types of universities that the RIAA targets) require authentication to access the university network, whether it's from the ethernet port in their dorm room or through a wireless access point in the library. It'd still be traceable back to a single student account.

Re:Cantenna and a wireless router in the library!

[tepples]

Using a cantenna, the "smart" students should aim the directional wifi to their dorms and surf on the library IP address. Why? The library's own computers are wired, and its wireless access points are authenticated.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

FERPA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually a very good move. IANAL, but I did go to law school for awhile and both my parents were educators. It amazes me that the schools have turned over any information. When I was working tech support for a school district hardly a day went by where we would run into an administrative roadblock because of FERPA, and all the privacy guarantees it gives to students.

Speaking for me only, if I were among the students whose identity had already been turned over I would attempt to get my identity withheld in discovery because it was illegally obtained. I would also sue the school which gave away my information.

Re:FERPA

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It amazes me that the schools have turned over any information. When I was working tech support for a school district hardly a day went by where we would run into an administrative roadblock because of FERPA, and all the privacy guarantees it gives to students. I think the reason it's happened is because the proceedings are ex parte: i.e., they're behind closed doors, without prior notice to the students or to the college. Had the discovery motion been made on notice, the university and students would have had a chance to educate the judge about FERPA and other privacy statutes. Certainly the RIAA isn't doing that.

So the real culprit is the judge who signs an ex parte order instead of requiring proper notice of motions, as the law requires.

Re:FERPA

[steelfood]

So the real culprit is the judge who signs an ex parte order instead of requiring proper notice of motions, as the law requires.

You can blame the judge, but I usually like to presume ignorance until I know otherwise. Rather, I'd blame the lawyers of the RIAA, for not informing the judge of this particular law (which they're not obligated to do, but is a matter of ethics), and for the schools for not appealing based upon this.

IANAL (which makes me either really foolish or really bold to argue with you ;) ), but it just seems like judgment made in ignorance of a law that would affect the judgment would be grounds for appeals.

Re:FERPA

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, the lawyers are required by the bar of whatever jurisdiction they practice in to disclose to the court all applicable laws and binding precedent. failure to do so leads to serious sanctions, including disbarment, which is a very serious matter for a lawyer

Re:FERPA

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

A federal judge is not supposed to sign orders where the other side has not been given prior notice.

Re:FERPA

[Hatta]

So the real culprit is the judge who signs an ex parte order instead of requiring proper notice of motions, as the law requires.

Unfortunate that we can't hold these judges responsible somehow. Sovereign immunity should be abolished.

Re:FERPA

[thomas.galvin]

I think the reason it's happened is because the proceedings are ex parte: i.e., they're behind closed doors, without prior notice to the students or to the college. Had the discovery motion been made on notice, the university and students would have had a chance to educate the judge about FERPA and other privacy statutes. Certainly the RIAA isn't doing that. The fact that judges are issuing ruling without being knowledgeable of the pertinent laws kind of terrifies me. It also kind of gives lie to the whole "ignorance of the law is no excuse" line; if the judges don't know the law, how on earth are the rest of us supposed to?

Re:FERPA

[element-o.p.]

So if a judge does something (s)he isn't supposed to do, what repercussions are there? Can a judge lose his seat, be subject to lawsuits himself, or ???

Re:FERPA

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

No judge or lawyer can be expected to "know the law". I don't care if the judge knows all about FERPA or not. I do care that the judge knows that our system requires "notice" to the other side, so the other side can get a lawyer to look into it and bring the law to the judge's attention.

Re:FERPA

[shentino]

Where did you get "sovereign immunity"?

Don't you mean judicial immunity?

Re:FERPA

[Hatta]

Judicial immunity is a subset of sovereign immunity. I was just being inclusive.

Donations

[bingo_cannon]

Have they set up anything for donations?

Ruling judge's sanctions

[esocid]

IANAL so don't mind me if I'm incorrect here, but in that case the ruling magistrate judge suggested Rule 11 sanctions. Stating In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. This judge's complaint is the last point of the motion that the legal aid is filing, but if even the judge has problems with what the MAFIAA is doing here I see the defendants winning most, if not all of the points of this motion.

Re:Ruling judge's sanctions

[Svartalf]

The Magistrate goes on to indicate:

These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined.

Based off of my reading of this part of the decision, I'd also say he had a problem with them doing it in the first place because they were obviously using the filing in question for the purposes of pre-trial discovery- also violating Rule 11(b).

Easy on the pr*n stars

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see where a porn star has to have a lot of education

Maybe because a smart woman is infinitely more attractive than a dumb one? Sorry, maybe it's just personal opinion, but I like to see a brain behind the eyes. No, the eyes higher up. Dumb peple are IMHO irritating, especially when they become president.

Hmm, slight tangent. What would happen with a pr*n start as president? It would make life hard for those seeking indictment, and it's not like it would change much from current, umm, "leadership" other than be a heck of a lot more entertaining (and probably less violent).

However, given the national reaction to a simple "wardrobe malfunction" (sjeez what a PC term, let's call it "exposed normal body part") I'd say "fat chance". I must move to Italy..

Re:Easy on the pr*n stars

[sm62704]

Smart != educated. Smart+educated is better than either one alone.

But you're not going to have a clue about any actress' intelligence or education from watching her in a film, whether porn star or G rated actress.

What would happen with a pr*n start as president?

Maybe they'd finally legalize prostitution? I'd vote for her!

Dumb peple are IMHO irritating, especially when they become president.

You know, I never thought I'd see a worse President than this guy (Bachelor of Science degree in physics), until This guy (MBA) moved into the White House.

Re:Easy on the pr*n stars

[kurzweilfreak]

What would happen with a pr*n start as president? It would make life hard for those seeking indictment...

It sure would make something hard I bet.

Just an aside, why the hell did you put "pr*n"?

That's ridiculous

[evolvearth]

The only reason why we pay for art is to support the artist. If we see that the artist is either high on the hog or that the artist isn't making very much from the recorded music, then there is less incentive to buy. Artists will always make money from concerts and various things like t-shirts and such, so they people we're really supporting are the ones who are popularizing their music globally. Basically, it is the businessmen who we aren't supporting through downloads.

The problem businessmen have is that they can't figure out the solution to this problem. Perhaps by exposing a band to a wide market, they could collect x amount of dollars from the concerts they performed, as they're supposedly responsible for popularzing the band to begin with. So the contract would spell that out for as long as the band is signed up with a particular record label. Recording music would simply be to advertise for the band rather than a major means of profit. You simply can't reproduce live performances--it's a different experience. Start making shit that can't be downloaded! Add extra shit to those hard copy of albums to make them worthwhile to buy: extra art, neat case, raffle tickets to win apparel, dogtags with band member names on it, et cetera. It's time to be creative. The artist at this point seems to be supported, so now I want my art for free and I'll worry about the artist when necessary. After all, isn't art's main purpose to be enjoyed by both the creator and his of her fans? As long as the artist isn't broke, I'm not going to feel guilty for not supporting the business of uncreative suits.

Re:That's ridiculous

[rsub_kc]

The only reason why we pay for art is to support the artist. If we see that the artist is either high on the hog or that the artist isn't making very much from the recorded music, then there is less incentive to buy. Artists will always make money from concerts and various things like t-shirts and such, so they people we're really supporting are the ones who are popularizing their music globally. Basically, it is the businessmen who we aren't supporting through downloads.

Current music industry trends don't pay artists for CD sells. As you mention, the artists get paid from concerts and other sells. The CD monies (minus very small cuts to the artists) go to the music company, which is why the business men are getting in the way. Think music artist are living high on the hog? Look into music industry executive salaries http://www.statssheet.com/articles/article6671.html/...that's the real reason big music hates file sharing!

Our Rules...

[AioKits]

...go to 11!

Re:What a bunch of idiots

[hobo sapiens]

You really nailed it. It is very nuanced and the reason why the debate rages because people can play the semantics game and make either side sound plausible. Thing is, slashdot is *the* place for geeks, and geeks are normally more objective than this. I guess everyone (or community) has their blind spots. You'll probably catch a few undeserved troll/flamebait mods for stating what you did because you'll look like an RIAA stooge (and you obviously aren't). But at least what you said is objective.

That said, the RIAA should NOT be allowed to use questionable tactics to enforce their copyrights. They really do bully people. It's unfortunate that well connected and very wealthy organizations can do things that the average guy couldn't. The law should be enforced with a modicum of parity. If the law really falls short in addressing what downloading music illegally is defined as, at least it can be consistent in how far a corporation can go in defending its IP, as well as how much in damages it can seek in a civil trial. The story of the woman from Michigan who was successfully sued for >200K should have never happened. What sane court could grant such a sum for such a small crime? That should be as illegal as copyright infringement, I know the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment doesn't pertain to civil trials but in this case that's what it was.

RIAA to blame for increase in graffiti

[michaelmalak]

It's just one of the many things that makes GenY so cynical: Bill Clinton lying about sex, GW Bush lying about WMD, low salaries, multi-national corporations, hypocrisy of suburbia (enshrined in American Beauty, the anthem movie of GenY).

This point was really driven home to me on discussion list recently. All the GenY members were defending graffiti as an artform whereas all the older members were condemning it as vandalism. GenY seems to think vandalism is OK as long as it is done against large corporations. I blame the RIAA in part for this. I blame the RIAA in part for the increase in graffiti.

Re:Hidden subject-You'd Think

[Nom du Keyboard]

a pre-action discovery proceeding [which is not authorized under the Federal Rules] masquerading as a copyright infringement proceeding.

You'd think the judge could put a stop to that -- or better yet a new Federal Rule -- mandating that any identities discovered could only be utilized in the current case. That way, if the plaintiffs lost, or never went to trial in the first place, that information couldn't be misused otherwise.

There was a non-RIAA non-Copyright case a couple years ago where a company sued to obtain the identity of a blogger, critical to that company, and believed to be an employee. While that company had no possibility of winning their case under the First Amendment, once they forced the internet site to cough up sufficient identifying information, they dropped their case and simply fired the employee. That should have never been allowed, and side-steps the whole intent that anonymous persons can be forced to be identified by the courts in virtually any case, no matter how lame, because it's necessary for the administration of justice to identify these defendants.

The whole idea that this will all come out in the wash so to speak, meaning at the actual trial exonerating innocent defendants and punishing overreaching plaintiffs totally misses the point of the damage already being done by the time identities have been revealed under the most flimsy of pretenses.

There should be an argument made that because the RIAA cannot win at trial with the illegally gathered evidence they already have, then identities shouldn't be revealed in the first place. Of course the RIAA will throw back the Jamie Thomas case were stupid juries, a less than bright defendant, and outright wrong jury instructions show that anything is possible if you throw enough b.s. at it.

Of course, my idea will only work if the penalties for actually misusing identity information outside of the trial itself are very VERY severe!

Another musical career insight

[deesine]

from somebody who doesn't know a single working (as in making a living with music) musician.

The artist at this point seems to be supported, so now I want my art for free and I'll worry about the artist when necessary.

That statement reads exactly like a 5 year old saying "I want it now!" - absolutely no connection to reality.

Re:Another musical career insight

[jedidiah]

Well I do know working artists and musicians.

My take on the whole situation is "kill the middle men".

They're leeches that are taking more of their fair share
and the entire industry needs a serious shakedown in order
to bring it back to reality.

Re:Another musical career insight

[evolvearth]

from somebody who doesn't know a single working (as in making a living with music) musician. I don't see how that makes a difference. What other purpose does a record company have beyond advertising a band? That statement reads exactly like a 5 year old saying "I want it now!" - absolutely no connection to reality. Seems like a pretty good connection to reality, as I can get it now for free and many other people are doing it too. I'm sure many have the same logic as well. None of the artists I'm downloading music from are starving, that's for sure

Re:Another musical career insight

[deesine]

The artist at this point seems to be supported

None of the artists I'm downloading music from are starving, that's for sure

How do you know either? You presume to know the solution to what economically ails musicians, better than the musicians who freely and voluntarily, and in most cases singularly desired, to become partnered with BigLabels. Make a case for your "right" to other's work, fine. But don't spoil your argument by professing to be helping musicians by downloading their music and never paying them - that's absurd.

Re:Another musical career insight

[evolvearth]

How do you know either?

Because the bands I listen to aren't exactly out of a garage. I don't listen to a large variety of music, and many bands I listen to have either broken up, slowing down, or distributing their music for an option price online.

You presume to know the solution to what economically ails musicians, better than the musicians who freely and voluntarily, and in most cases singularly desired, to become partnered with BigLabels.

I didn't claim I knew the solutions, I gave some options that may be more relevant with the changing times. I thought that was clearly obvious.

Make a case for your "right" to other's work, fine. But don't spoil your argument by professing to be helping musicians by downloading their music and never paying them - that's absurd.

That never was my argument. My argument is that they make quite a bit of money depending on the band, and that the bands that I am aware of are making quite a bit of money, then I'm not going to feel guilty for enjoying their art without paying for it. I thought that is what art is about. If I like a local band, I generally haven't enjoy local band music, then I'd support them by going to their local concerts, buying their merchandise including burned CDs of their music that they usually distribute. Or if they're one of my favorite bands, I'd buy new albums if they did something unique--like when I paid 15 bucks to download Radiohead's latest album. The thing is, art is not quite the same as any other product. The sole purpose of art isn't to make a buck, hopefully there is some meaning behind it.

Re:Another musical career insight

[deesine]

The sole purpose of art isn't to make a buck, hopefully there is some meaning behind it.

Don't tell that to the guy who draws money. But seriously, hopefully artists don't prioritize money, of the several/many rewards their artwork can bring. For them, well, they're just not artists, and so when they get less money for what they've produced it's ok, we won't feel guilty.

two comments

[MooseTick]

1. This may not pass in a court of law, but a way to show there is no intent to distribute but still make available would be a disclaimer when connecting sayign "Unauthorized connections or copying of this data is not permitted." The server could still allow it without resistance, but it would be posted as not allowed.

This would be like the books on a table in the front yard with a sign that says "Don't steal". No one would be stopping anyone from taking a book, but they owner would be seen as making an effort saying they do not authorize the action.

2. Regardless of thier tactics, concerns with copyright length, and the "quality" of the people they represent's product, don't you still believe that when people own IP with a valid copyright (especially if the music/movie/etc is fairly new) have a right to control the distribution of their work and somehow stop people from sharing THEIR music/movie/data/etc without authorization?

Re:two comments

[cdrguru]

1. I think there have been laws against stealing since Hammurabi. A sign saying "don't steal" is irrelevent, as is a notice that you shouldn't steal.

2. No. The whole point is to get as much as you can without paying for it. If it is on the Internet, I and the rest of the Internet-using world doesn't have to pay. Period. The. Internet. Is. Free. OK, can we move on now?

While it may be regrettable, I do not believe that copyright can survive the way children are being educated today. They learn everything is free on the Internet and nobody can stop them. DRM stops the less knowledgable today but in a few years that will be pointless as everyone will know how to get around it.

It comes down to a fundamental matter of respect - either you respect the rights of others or you do not. Copyright today is a matter of respect, and there isn't much of that going around. We are now arguing about whether or not someone deserves to have their right to live their life respected, with lots of folks coming down on the side of "personal freedom" allowing them to trash other people's lives with impunity.

Back to the drawing table

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should RIAA exist at the first place?
Corporations should not have the right to "unionize" with the sole purpose of suing people.

Re:Back to the drawing table

[Anonymous Coward]

are you really that stupid or are you just trying to play some limp version of devil's advocate?

Lawyer Pr0n?

[Anonymous Coward]

God...NO!!!

Gort! Klaatu barada nikto.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> are brought for improper purposes of obtaining discovery, getting publicity, and intimidation

Ummm, that's what copyright is for, so the owners can go after the copyright violaters, including discovery, getting publicity (to discourage others), and intimidation (to discourage others.) Penalties are intimidation.

Now if you view it as a SLAPP- or Scientology-style attack, designed to intimidate by deliberately driving up costs, then you may have a point.

Wouldn't it be easier...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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

Re:Wouldn't it be easier...

[compro01]

1. not to mention not go to the same educational institution or use the same ISP, or live in the same general geographic area as someone who might be distributing copyrighted works without authorization.

2. you're missing the fact that almost every time anyone has lawyered up against them, they speedily drop the suit. that would seem to point to the fact that they're simply throwing lots of lawsuits with minimal or non-existent/inadmissible evidence and hope that they're uninterested in contesting the claims and/or unable to get a lawyer to do so, and simply pay them X thousand dollars to go away.

3. no doubt that what they [the sharers] are (allegedly) doing is illegal under current (US) copyright law. what is at issue is the manner in which they are perusing appears to blatantly violate several other laws regarding legal process. simply because they believe they are perusing people doing something illegal should not give them carte blanche to do whatever they like in the process.

4. that is being worked on.

Re:Wouldn't it be easier...

[ScrewMaster]

I did understand this stuff already, but just wanted to make sure it really was that simple.

Honestly, I haven't seen even a Microsoft apologist do a better job portraying truly awful people in such a positive light, while simultaneously skirting the real issues. Very impressive effort ... totally wasted on this crowd, I'm sure, since most of us are much better informed than you are.

They aren't the bad guys, they just have a dirty job.

They are very much are the bad guys, because this is less a matter of why, as it is a matter of how. Now, I was going to write a lengthy missive in a (probably vain) effort to enlighten you, but then I discovered the source of your disinformation:

I once hired an entertainment attorney to explain it all to me, who was very surprised that it's not self evident.

That's rather like asking a surgeon whether or not you need surgery (no offense intended to any surgeons out there, but we all have our biases.) Next time, try selecting a competent attorney specializing in copyright law who doesn't work for the very industry whose tactics and ethics are being questioned. You might gain a better understanding of what's really going on here.

Next Episode of "Dirty Jobs"

[R2.0]

"Have you ever watched porn close caption?"

Transcribing porn for the hearing impaired.

Go for a boat analogy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer the boat analogy, personally, from April Fool's:

RIAA Yacht Copied in Daring Act of Piracy

In a what the Coast Guard is calling a 'daring act of nautical infringement,' pirates have copied RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol's personal yacht. After attacking with high speed inner tubes, they quickly made off with the data necessary to exactly duplicate the ship and vanished, but not before leaving behind an NFO with a pirate flag and a threat to 'rip' former RIAA chief Hillary Rosen's ship next. The RIAA is now demanding that the US Government issue Letters of Marquee and Reprisal so that they can prosecute these pirates under a little-known provision of copyright law governing ship designs as well as Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.

Re:What a bunch of idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually cruel and unusual punishment extends to everyone. If you catch your kid jerking off to gay porn you arent allowed to make them walk down main street with their pants down holding up a sign that says 'I'm a flaming faggot!'. Because that would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Besides punishment for a crime (or civil case) is decided BY the Government (read: judge). Therefore they are not permitted to apply anything that would be considered cruel or unusual.

public domain

[cliffski]

The more I think about the argument about works reverting to the public domain, the less sense it makes.
If I spend 3 years working and toiling to buy some land and build a house, then that house is mine FOREVER. I can even leave it to my descendants, and they will still 100% own it in a thousand years time. There is inheritance tax, but the property remains private
If I take that same 3 years work, and put it into writing a new book, some software, a game or recording an album, apparently that isn't mine any more within X years (where X is defined as zero by anti-copyright kids).
Why?

The rational man would not produce creative work because its value is limited to only X years. this is a DISINCENTIVE to creative work.
You might say that society benefits from publically owned communal art. But isn't this true of land too? There are some individuals in my country owning hundreds of acres, who did NOTHING to deserve it, not even their great grandparents did the original work.
How is this fair? or sensible?

Re:public domain

[Foobar of Borg]

What is inappropriately called intellectual "property" is not property. You invent something or you write and, in exchange for releasing it to the public, the government gives you the legal rights to that invention or work for a limited amount of time. It is about control, not ownership. Furthermore, if you own a piece of land, it is distinct from every other piece of land. No one can also simultaneously occupy it. Only you can. The reason for control is that a book or an invention can be readily copied. This could even be done in older times, but the amount of overhead made it likely that people would find out about it more easily.

Furthermore, every idea whether a book or invention is built off of the work of others. Should the inventor of a better type of jet propulsion still have to pay royalties to the heirs of the Wright Brothers? Should Shakespeare have had to pay royalties for about everything he wrote, since his plays were based either on history or were a variation on an old theme?

Copyrights create an incentive to produce works because the artist will get protection from the government long enough for him to try to make money off of it. The "limited" part of that is what society gets in exchange. It is the "consideration" if you want to put it in contractual terms.

This is wholly different from the idea of property. When you buy something or make something, there is no ownership requirement that says you have to keep working on it. Such would be ludicrous. You are conflating two issues that have nothing to do with each other because MAFIAA shill keep referring to copyrights as "property". A better analogy for copyrights and patents would be a contract. The government grants you control of your work and the right to sue in exchange for you publicly disclosing that work and letting it out into the public after the time expires. Or, perhaps we could go back to where there is no copyright. Then, you can get money to perform in public, or recite the next part of your story in public. Or, do like Shakespeare and try to never have your works published and control who comes into the Globe so people will have to pay to come to your theater to see the play.

Finally, the biggest reason why copyrights and patents should not be granted in perpetuity is because, by doing so, you are ultimately going to wind up keeping people from expressing any idea or developing anything at all inventive without paying money to someone. You wouldn't be able to write a letter to anyone, or say anything publicly, or mess around with circuit equipment to develop a new gadget without paying royalties to a bunch of people.

Re:public domain

[cliffski]

But I would suggest that you are the one who is lumping two concepts together. The copyright that prevents someone being influenced by another product, such as a similar sounding song, is one thing, and I see that as seperate from the idea of copyright in a SPECIFIC piece of work.
In other words, I agree that I should be able to make a film thats massively influenced by star wars, and call it something different, without being sued or paying anything.
But Why should you be able to take the EXACT work made by george lucas & co and distribute it as your own? Even thirty generations later?

Granted, this sounds excessive, but this is exactly what we do with property. Someone owns number 211 Las Vegas Strip. in 100 years time, the owner may be a different person, but its unlikely to be 'the community'.
What is so special about housing and land that it can be fenced off and kept out of the public domain for a literally infinite period?

Re:public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:public domain

[cliffski]

so you didn't fucking bother reading my post at all then.
welcome to slashdot I guess.

All of the musicians

[deesine]

I know want to eliminate the middleman. However, I don't know a single one that thinks the answer lies in giving away all their recordings. Do you?

Re:All of the musicians

[monxrtr]

Did any of the artists care about any of the consumers losing all of their public domain contemporary return benefit rights when copyright was extended from 14 years to life plus 50 years? Did they care in the slightest that artists making money from selling songs 30, 40, and 50 years old are *stealing* from the public? No. So no consumer should care if any artist gets 100% of his work stolen and can't make a single cent. It's called Justice.

Re:All of the musicians

[Cecil]

I know a few who do, yes. Obviously, most don't believe it can be a long term solution, but first we have to kill the beast before we figure out how we're going to collect the loot.

Re:All of the musicians

[deesine]

The fierce competition for people's musical attention ($) doesn't magically go away once Mr. BigLabel exec starts driving a Toyota.

I'm writing a virus...

[Wescotte]

that examines a computers harddrive and estimates the amount of space I can "hide" music data in. Then I gather the music listening habits of the machine by genre, peak play times, and other various metrics. Finally I use this data to obtain music from various P2P sources to find content the user would enjoy and secretly insert it into their play lists. Think I can get the RIAA to pay a $50 fee per machine I install it on? I'm going to be rich!!

Re:What a bunch of idiots

[monxrtr]

I know the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment doesn't pertain to civil trials but in this case that's what it was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. A.) The fines for civil damages are set by federal statute.

B.) They are excessive.

C.) Therefore, unconstitutional.

It certainly does apply to Civil Trial when damages are a priori set by Federal Statute, juries are instructed, biased, and beholden to not awarding actual damages, which according to recent Supreme Court cases, are deemed excessive at more than three times the actual damage amount. So any penalty greater than $3 per infringed song is unconstitutional, let alone $150,000 fines for $1 (not even *proved*) actual damages.

Only ONE way to shut them down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Death.

Trolling

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I notice that one form of trolling which takes place, every time we have a post on a litigation event in the RIAA cases, is that someone starts some thread about whether it's okay to take people's content without paying for it, whether the money goes to the artists, etc.

I wish folks with moderation points would mod those posts as "off-topic".

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the litigations, which are not about whether it's okay to take people's content without paying for it, but about whether morons with a lot of money in the bank and a bunch of unscrupulous lawyers have the right to be suing (a) innocent people for no reason at all, and (b) people who may have committed copyright infringement for excessive sums of money.

Yes, I see:

[deesine]

sins of our fathers, and all. What's your last name?

Re:Gort! Klaatu barada nikto.

[EmagGeek]

Wow, I just saw that movie last weekend. I can't remember the name of it, though. Hah.

Re:What a bunch of idiots

[bzipitidoo]

It's unfortunate that well connected and very wealthy organizations can do things that the average guy couldn't. The law should be enforced with a modicum of parity.

This point ought to be expanded. A way to foment a revolution is actual unfairness. The MAFIAA is patently unfair in their dealings with both their customers and artists. They have no sense of responsibility to be trying such stunts. They're their own worst enemies. They won't play by the rules, so it falls to our legal system to stop them. They persist in their obviously wrong views of how the natural world works. Regulations on the ever easier activity known as "copying" simply cannot be forced or enforced on unwilling people. The MAFIAA's efforts have for the most part served to precipitate a change of heart in many people who would be willing participants, and would feel twinges of conscience for "starving artists". That's the real message sent by "judgment of $222,000 against a single mother for allegedly sharing 24 copyrighted songs" and many other similar cases despite furious efforts to spin all those as fair punishments for infringement of holy copyright. They've managed to brainwash a number of people, but it's been wearing ever thinner, and too many of their efforts such as "Captain Copyright" have been comically inept. Actually, they aren't really even bothering to say those judgments are fair, only that they "send a message" that we'd better not "copy that floppy". DRM and copy protection have been at best wastes, and at worst complete disasters. But either mislead by their convictions or through sheer uncaring greed or most likely a bit of both, they try these DRM schemes, and also try to subvert our system, getting new rules passed and upheld through a combination of bribery (with the most common euphemism for that being "campaign contributions") and hysterical fearmongering over a basic fact of life known as "change". Valenti and his "Boston strangler" analogy come to mind. How else would the judge in the original Napster case have been moved to proclaim that the defendants have "created a monster"?

It is good for stability that these law students, among others, have found ways to help the system in at last reining in the MAFIAA. There are still plenty of other wealthy players who are finessing, bending, and outright cheating every way they can. Cheating of course is also a fact of nature, but that thanks to corruption they get away with it repeatedly is an ongoing problem. I maintain we still need fundamental changes to the law, and that copyright and also patent law must eventually be seen by a majority for the dogma that it is, and be neutered and possibly even repealed. To the extent that the MAFIAA's comeuppance delays this, this is bad. If the MAFIAA could actually prevail, they might find all they managed to do was precipitate a revolution, and discover they're in the thrilling position of "first against the wall". But once the law is caught up with reality whether by negotiation or revolution, and it then seems desirable to give extra encouragement to the arts and sciences (and I expect it will), we can devise ways to do that without trying to regulate sharing. I'm not keen on such ideas as a levy on blank CDs, or an Internet tax, as there'd certainly be big issues in figuring out how the monies raised should be distributed let alone whether the levy or tax is a fair amount or even fair at all, with even more players looking for every angle, but I think such schemes might ultimately be chosen.

RIAA abuse of legal system

[Anonymous Coward]

Over-broad, vague discovery notices, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Write in Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

PS Josh

[Anonymous Coward]

what firm do you work for so I can I let them know?