Slashdot Mirror


Judge Excludes 3 "John Does" From RIAA Subpoena

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of the RIAA's 'John Doe' cases targeting Boston University students, after the University wrote to the Court saying that it could not identify three of the John Does 'to a reasonable degree of technical certainty,' Judge Nancy Gertner deemed the University's letter a 'motion to quash,' and granted it, quashing the subpoena as to those defendants. In the very brief docket entry (PDF) containing her decision, she noted that 'compliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery.' There is an important lesson to be learned from this ruling: if the IT departments of the colleges and universities targeted by the RIAA would be honest, and explain to the Courts the problems with the identification and other technical issues, there is a good chance the subpoenas will be vacated. Certainly, there is now a judicial precedent for that principle. One commentator asks whether this holding 'represents the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops.'"

66 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. It's obvious that what we need is... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...a new law requiring better IP tracking built into all new routers and laptops.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sad but true. just leaving the problem that I can change my mac address and even with username/pass systems pilfering a login/pass from a com girl or arts student in my uni would be childsplay

    2. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Alarindris · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sad but true. just leaving the problem that I can change my mac address and even with username/pass systems pilfering a login/pass from a com girl or arts student in my uni would be childsplay

      I would like to see more discussion on that actually. I understand that anonymity is sort of the thing that makes the internet great.

      Is having a static home address (123 Cherry Lane) preventing anonymity in the real world? Is that a valid comparison?

      It seems like the point above could/should be a concern to an average user, retaining your identity?

    3. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They very well might try, on grounds of their "impeding the investigation".

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    4. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How can you be "impeding the investigation" if you took these measures before any such investigation existed? It would be one thing to destroy evidence after being issued a subpoena but I'm not aware of any law that requires IT departments to retain logs of IP assignments.......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by qwertphobia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're assuming they apply logic where logic is appropriate. I think you give them too much credit.

      --
      Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
    6. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2

      I didn't say they would succeed, merely that the RIAA is clueless enough to still try to make it the universities' fault.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    7. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then I suppose you have to decide what's more important -- having the ability to track people down for other purposes or preventing your shop from being used as RIAA's evidence gathering team.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Sancho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, gosh, when you spin it that way, who'd let themselves be used?!

      Besides, it's not about gathering evidence. The RIAA and their investigative agencies do that. Universities just provide a name.

    9. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by SkyDude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would like to see more discussion on that actually. I understand that anonymity is sort of the thing that makes the internet great.

      I'm not so sure that total anonymity is such a great thing. It allows too many cretins to make personal attacks on people, essentially convicting someone of a perceived crime, when none may have occurred. Certainly, those who have been the victims would agree.

      Is having a static home address (123 Cherry Lane) preventing anonymity in the real world? Is that a valid comparison?

      When you realize that your home can be seen by anyone via Google Earth or similar service, it does call into question how private is your life. Of course, the view is not real time, but it is a snapshot and who knows what was happening that day? I think a closer comparison might be your landline telephone. It's not completely anonymous, can be traced to an physical address in most cases and there are laws that disallow the use of the phone for certain things such as uttering threats or causing a fraud to be perpetrated.

      I am in no way condoning the actions of the RIAA, but until the failed business model they were assigned to protect is gone, they have the right to stop the unfettered sharing of copyrighted materials. Just like a trace that can be put on a landline phone, and the identity of the phone subscriber found, the RIAA has an obligation to its client to find out who is causing the client to lose revenue and changing one's MAC or IP address may seem like a cool way to beat it, but the law may not be on your side at this time.

      Having said all of that, one has to ask how much longer the recording industry will continue this folly.

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    10. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, gosh, when you spin it that way, who'd let themselves be used?!

      Eh, I wasn't spinning, that's how I really see it. My job as an IT person is to make sure that the network is functional for my users. My job isn't to help RIAA build a case that will be used to bankrupt one of my users based on some thin argument like "making available". Not having logs of IP assignments (or keeping those logs for very short periods of time) isn't going to be a huge hindrance to me -- so I choose not to keep them in my shop.

      The RIAA and their unlicensed investigative agencies do that

      Fixed that for you :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Is having a static home address (123 Cherry Lane) preventing anonymity in the real world?"
      As long as you are not required to display it on yourself everywhere you go, no.

      "Is that a valid comparison?"
      Maybe, changing the MAC address of your computer to someone's else (or spoofing an IP address) to do something wrong is similiar to yelling "I am " to the police while running away from the police.

      "It seems like the point above could/should be a concern to an average user, retaining your identity?"
      Absolutely, but there is not much you can do before the police knocks at your door.

    12. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe that the last round of funds approved by the U.S. Congress for higher education included a provision requiring any educational institution receiving federal funds to make "all reasonable efforts" to combat illegal file sharing. I am confident that the federal government would regard your suggestion as the opposite of making "reasonable efforts" to combat illegal file sharing.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    13. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am in no way condoning the actions of the RIAA, but until the failed business model they were assigned to protect is gone, they have the right to try to stop the alleged unfettered sharing of copyrighted materials.

      Fixed that for you.

      Just like a trace that can be put on a landline phone, and the identity of the phone subscriber found,

      This is the same stupid justification that the RIAA uses in all its John Doe suits. The phone subscriber may not be the one using the phone.

      the RIAA has an obligation to its client to find out who is causing the client to lose revenue

      Shouldn't the 'client'(artists) also be receiving their share of money collected? Don't the RIAA have an obligation to work within the law to find the ones responsible beyond reasonable doubt instead of going after anyone with only the flimsiest of evidence and then expecting others to do all the work for them?

      and changing one's MAC or IP address may seem like a cool way to beat it, but the law may not be on your side at this time.

      Changing your MAC or IP is not illegal. In a world where governments are trying to record everything we do, anything that makes it harder for people to track you is a good thing.

    14. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I check out RIAA Radar and hand over some scratch if I hear a song that I like and discover the artist is signed with an indie label. I doubt my purchases matter much in the grand scheme of things but I'm going to vote with my wallet anyway.

      They matter a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    15. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 2, Informative

      So you assign RSA tokens to the University children, errr, students. When they hook up to the University Network they are given access to a locked down VLAN with a host specific subnet and access only to the RSA login page. This prevents the users from setting a bypass proxy on an multihomed PC.

      The student has to enter their userid, password, pin, and RSA Token. Once this is done then the MAC address is given a short lease on the real student network. The software updates the Cisco CAM tables so that my MAC address is only allowed on the port I am plugged into (OR AP) and the ACL's are adjusted so that my IP address is similarly restricted.

      Now you have an associate of a MAC address, IP address, and Student information. You have automatic tracking. I can't simply change my IP address or MAC address because the Cisco switch has this locked down.

      Every so many hours I have to re-authenticate, as appropriate per University.

      This is NAC. It is doable today. All the RIAA/MPAA needs to do is to bribe *their* representatives in congress to make a law requiring this. Of course, they'll to do this under the guise of protecting the children from terrorist via a 3rd party. Everyone want's to protect the kids.

      (Cynicism, if not apparent.)

    16. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shh! stop giving them ideas!!!
      Also that sounds expensive... and hell to deal with 10K students who can barely use a mouse trying to understand why they need to remember those passwords and why it wtopped working after they deleted those files etc....

    17. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really it raises the question: could the total cost of fighting file sharing like special equipment, thousands of lawyers, legally mandated logging at ISP's etc surpass the total wealth generated by music. Would it be cheaper to buy the hardware and hire the people to police/admin your network to avoid litigation or just cut a deal with the mafiaa for protection from their thugs.

    18. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hope so. I was actually pleasantly surprised to discover how much non-RIAA music is out there and how often my favorite radio station plays it. That actually surprised me the most -- the radio station in question is owned by Clear Channel yet I've discovered a lot of good indie music through them. Who would've thought? Pandora is another good source in my experience, although it seems to take them longer to get new albums up for some reason (licensing issues?)

      Yes. And I'm making a collection. I have a list of free links to indie music sources which I call "Liberated Music". And I have advertising links for indie-only music where I and my blog actually get a commission if you buy something.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    19. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The latter is far more likely than the former to have the desired effect. It seems to me that downloading whatever you want has been proven repeatedly to be used by the RIAA to justify their tactics.

      Oh, I wasn't downloading whatever I want to make a point to RIAA. I was downloading whatever I want because it was free. I think most people would acknowledge on some level that it's wrong to do that -- what I would dispute is that the person who engages in file-sharing deserves to be punished more harshly than the person who shoplifts a CD.

      If somebody got a $222,000 fine for shoplifting a $20 CD I'm fairly certain that it would cause public outrage and probably be ruled unconstitutional. Funny RIAA uses the civil system to accomplish what the criminal system would acknowledge as being completely disproportional to the "crime" that was committed......

      Personally, I hope they all burn in hell.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, I wasn't downloading whatever I want to make a point to RIAA. I was downloading whatever I want because it was free. I think most people would acknowledge on some level that it's wrong to do that

      Fair enough - I've just seen that used as a justification for it often enough that I tend to jump to conclusions on the matter.

      what I would dispute is that the person who engages in file-sharing deserves to be punished more harshly than the person who shoplifts a CD.

      On the other hand, shoplifting a CD can get you jail time if you do it often enough. At least they haven't successfully reached that point in their lobbying (yet).

      Multiple thousand dollar fines is /extremely/ disproportionate to the act performed - all the more so because they have no proof of damages; no real proof that anything happened (at least on the information we've had in cases so far); nor any proof of amount of distribution that was actually done.

      That being said, there is a difference between shoplifting a CD for yourself, and making copies of that CD and giving them away on a NYC streetcorner. I don't think it's unreasonable to have financial penalties beyond what shoplifting merits. The major stumbling block there is that it should require definitive /proof/ - something that is literally impossible to get given the current architecture of the Internet.

      Conversely, there's an even bigger difference between throwing the book at someone whom you captured stealing CDs on video; and doing the same against someone who happened to be in the store when the theft took place. I think that's a pretty accurate analogy for what RIAA is doing.

      This doesn't even get into the sheer intimidation factor that they are applying with their tactics - whether someone 'made available' or not can be made irrelevant when you scare them into settling because they can't afford to fight you.

    21. Re:It's obvious that what we need is... by RobertM1968 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Multiple thousand dollar fines is /extremely/ disproportionate to the act performed - all the more so because they have no proof of damages; no real proof that anything happened (at least on the information we've had in cases so far); nor any proof of amount of distribution that was actually done.

      That being said, there is a difference between shoplifting a CD for yourself, and making copies of that CD and giving them away on a NYC streetcorner. I don't think it's unreasonable to have financial penalties beyond what shoplifting merits. The major stumbling block there is that it should require definitive /proof/ - something that is literally impossible to get given the current architecture of the Internet.

      And one is a civil matter, while the other is a criminal matter. Everyone seems to forget that here. Downloading (or otherwise acquiring) music (whether through legal or illegal means) and then distributing that music en-masse for profit or in a fashion that hurts the profits of the copyright holders (where it can be successfully argued some form of benefit is gained by the person doing it) is a criminal matter (that may also include a civil component).

      Currently, file sharing/P2P/etc is seen as a civil matter.

      The lines between the two are blurry, and the RIAA and MPAA are already trying to get rid of that line so either class of entity can be charged civilly and criminally.

  2. There's another clear lesson here by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When file sharing your music and movies, use public wifi points to crush any lawsuit potential from the RIAA!

    1. Re:There's another clear lesson here by Jeoh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      -public+any other than your own

  3. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really? Even if they used it without your knowledge?

    That's like saying that if I let my mates take my car and they go commit a crime with it (say a hit and run), I should be punished for it.

    I wouldn't be classified as an accessory to their hit-and-run, so why should I be an accessory to their copyright infringement if I let them use my connection?

  4. Re:Odd by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most of my neighbours have wireless.
    I could crack into them in minutes and download.
    Are they supposed to be security experts now?
    What about when WPA gets cracked? even the ones with a little knowhow will be open for a time.

    If someone breaks into your house and commits mail fraud while you're away are you guilty because your door wasn't strong enough to keep them out?

    "accessory to their infringement" is bullshit

  5. We can hope... by wild_quinine · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ... but there's little hope to be found.

    The suddenoutbreakofcommonsense shown on this small scale is coming too late, I fear. Because even now, ISPs are caving to big media. Phorm worms its way through many UK ISPs, apparently undiminished. A consortium of service providers have agreed to keep tabs on the situation for the record insdustry, amongst others, and send out warning letters to infringers. Usenet has been all but dropped from the roster of ISP services.

    Unlike the naysayers, I always believed that the internet would remain free. After all, ISPs have always been protected as carriers, just like the postal service - and the postal service is not subject to search and seizure without due process. Nobody can open my private mail (unless it crosses borders) and check for pirated DVDs, without a really good reason to suspect that I'm pirating DVDs.

    But I was wrong, and stupid, and for once in my damn life, too optimistic.

    Because for every smart call like the one above, there are ten stories of companies we need to be able to trust voluntarily caving to pressure. It's too damn late.

    1. Re:We can hope... by jambox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You may be right but I don't think it's over yet - it wouldn't be too tough to routinely encrypt most or all traffic. Anyhow, even if the media companies do manage to maim the internet by throwing lawyers at ISPs, I doubt this'll save the record companies, because the internet is only part of their problem. If I want to I can get 100+ free albums just by asking people who sit near me at work, without having to be online at all. Virtually everyone's got a cheap USB hard disk plugged into their laptops, each one of which can store enormous amounts of music.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    2. Re:We can hope... by oreaq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course it will not save the record companies. The problem is the damage they do while dying.

    3. Re:We can hope... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      After all, ISPs have always been protected as carriers

      That's one huge stick that can be used against American ISPs who get too aggressive in their traffic monitoring: the "safe harbor" clause of the DMCA.:

      (a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.â" A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the providerâ(TM)s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, ifâ"
      (1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
      (2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
      (3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
      (4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
      (5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

      If an ISP attempts to block specific content, then they violate clause #2. If they pull copies of content out of the pipes for further investigation, then they violate clause #3. If they modify the content in any way, then they violate clause #5. In any of those cases, they are no longer indemnified against claims of contributory copyright violation. In a nutshell, if they mess with it, they're responsible for it.

      I'm not a lawyer. However, I noticed that a large local non-profit organization had a very intrusive clickthrough agreement for their free WAP service (I was bored and read it). I pointed the above out to the organization's lawyer who read it and said my interpretation was substantially correct, and who then recommended that they remove all pretense of monitoring and filtering from their service.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  6. Universities still need to police their networks by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In 2001, my alma mater had 2 45mbps lines for the university and they were consistently hammered by the students doing file sharing. It got to the point that some people in the CS department joked that banging out packets across tin-cans-on-strings would be faster than using the campus network when classes were generally over for the day.

    Then, the university instituted packet shapers across the network and it got usable again. Usable to the point where I didn't feel like I was on a 14.4k modem again.

    If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.

  7. spoof::poof by lq_x_pl · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The means to spoofing one's variety of e-identities (including MAC, IP, Useragent) are light years ahead of the means of tracking use!
    The RIAA could demand some draconian cerberos system, but I doubt that rendering large campus networks unusable will garner them any support from the already annoyed campus IT admins. Anyway, much like the AV companies vs virus-writers, this battle is an entirely defensive one.

    It's nice to see something logical leaking out of the judicial system, however.

    --
    An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
  8. Death Knell? by Thyamine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't every one of these stories tagged as being the death knell for the RIAA? Don't get me wrong, I'm always glad to see the RIAA losing in these types of cases, but 'death knell for the RIAA' is getting to be 'Year for Linux on the Desktop'.

    --
    I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
    1. Re:Death Knell? by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Depends how you define "the year of linux on the desktop", doesn't it?

      The fastest growing segment of the PC market, netbooks, are split between Windows XP and linux. That, along with reaching mature status on important projects like web browsers, office software, media players, and Instant Messagers, is slowly making linux a viable alternative to Windows, as the netbook market is showing.

      Similarly, depends how you define "death knell". I don't think any one of these bad things is going to spell the end of the RIAA crusade against their customers. I do think, however, that the slow build-up of legal ways to avoid being attacked will make their crusade more effort than it's worth. They'll go from being able to sue 3000 people in a single lawsuit to having to focus on a few, then maybe one. At that point, it's not economical to sue potential customers anymore, and they'll just have to figure out ways to make money instead.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    2. Re:Death Knell? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, the release of Duke Nukem 4ever will be the death knell for the RIAA and the year of Linux on the desktop!

      And ponies. Can't forget the ponies.

    3. Re:Death Knell? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Isn't every one of these stories tagged as being the death knell for the RIAA? Don't get me wrong, I'm always glad to see the RIAA losing in these types of cases, but 'death knell for the RIAA' is getting to be 'Year for Linux on the Desktop'.

      Well look at it this way. If this case stands for the principle that no John Doe information can be divulged unless the ISP can identify the "alleged infringer" to a "reasonable degree of technical certainty", and that principle is followed by other courts.... very few, if any, "alleged infringers", will ever be identified.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    4. Re:Death Knell? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      BSD (cousin to Linux?)

      It's pretty hard to class OS X as related to Linux. OS X is UNIX, with code from AT&T UNIX via 4BSD and later via FreeBSD and code from CMU Mach. It is UNIX(tm), as it has passed certification by The Open Group.

      Linux is a clone of UNIX, shares no code with UNIX (except a few small bits taken from BSD, mostly headers), and is not certified as UNIX(tm).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Death Knell? by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There isn't any music 'they can face'.

      For copyright to exist, it required a minimal level of effort required to violate copyright, especially at the 'mass production' level.

      That no longer exist. Ergo, copyright no longer works. I'm not saying that as a moral judgment, I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not saying whether I like it or not, I have no idea what that will do to the production of creative works.

      Copyright was always aimed more at commercial interests than anyone else, because for the longest time only commercial interests could copy things, or at least could copy them at a high enough quality to effect things, or a high enough volume.

      And then came the internet, where commercial interests are not needed to copy music or TV or movies or books or anything. Perfectly. Forever. Copyright was never designed to stop anything like that.

      'Copyright no longer works' is just a value-neutral statement of fact. I did not make this true, do not blame me.

      Now, the music's industry thrashing around attempting to face this fact could, indeed, cause damage, and thus I'm in favor of altering the laws to recognize this new fact and limit the damage they can do. Not because I feel this new fact is 'morally superior' or anything, but because I feel it is true.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  9. Re:Universities still need to police their network by Skye16 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Isn't that what I'm did by paying the obscene "technology fee"? What ELSE is that 1224$ going toward?

    Is it hookers? Hookers and blow? You can tell me the truth. I won't be half as mad if you tell me it's hookers and blow.

  10. Re:Universities still need to police their network by wild_quinine · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.

    I have to disagree with your final point; in almost any University environment the students ARE paying for their connections one way or another. The terms under which they can use it, however, are usually a bit more restrictive that your standard ISP.

  11. Change of direction by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Is it just my imagination or is there a subtle change of emphasis since the US Presidential election?

    This isn't flamebait (I hope) but a genuine query. I have the distinct impression that, now people know that, specifically, Cheney is on the way out, judges are perhaps slightly more willing to assert the rights of the individual and liberal institutions and politicians are starting to find their backbones. (I'm reminded of Jay Gould's joke about the biologists who discovered a creature with a very small brain and almost no backbone, only it turned out to be a fish not a member of the House.) After all, the President-Elect is an expert on the Constitution, whereas the previous Administration seems to have contained some people who were experts on bypassing it.

    It is not just in the US. Would the British Labor Party have dared to increase taxes on the rich and cut consumption taxes if Obama had not proposed something similar? Would they have dared to have an attack of socialism where the banks are concerned had Bush not had to do exactly the same?

    As Clinton so rightly said, it's the economy, stupid.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Change of direction by infalliable · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Doubtful. The president/executive branch has very little influence on the lower courts. They weigh in on matters that will directly affect them, such as national security, but file sharing tends to be pretty low on the list of important things to the executive branch.

      Biden has also a history of being pretty pro-copyright, so that would actually skew it the other way.

      I think it has more to do with the courts (especially specific judges) getting sick of the RIAA.

  12. Don't get carried away by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Via other legislation, it looks like colleges and universities in the US are going to be expected to take active steps - training and education, and likely technical as well - to curb piracy or else risk losing federal funding. It's part of the "Higher Education Opportunity Act". They're now in the "rulemaking" phase, but I find it hard to believe that the Department of Education is going to be particularly accommodating, and I'm not confident that the new administration will be substantially better than the old on this issue. I think this case is going to give the RIAA/MPAA and their allies in congress something to point at to say "See! We need more protection".

    If we're required to do blocking and monitoring, the BU defense won't hold, because we'll have the data. At this point, the biggest factor is the delay. If you're a university buying service through a provider, and the letter goes to them first, it takes at least a week, often more, to get to you. By that point, there's usually not even any reason to look for the torrent they're complaining about.

    1. Re:Don't get carried away by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we're required to do blocking and monitoring, the BU defense won't hold, because we'll have the data.

      I wonder what kind of ridiculous fine structure or penalties there will be for not logging what you monitor?

      How about a well documented disk failure event on the file system containing all the logs? "Sorry, Your Honor, we logged everything, and then the disk failed."

      Are we going to be legislated into complete backup strategies? I doubt it.

      I think the Senate/Obama stance is that bad business models can be allowed to fail (See GM, Ford, Chryseler). It that holds true, the business model of the RIAA/Big 4, which was a sinking ship before Sep08, will certainly have some scrutiny before legislation. Couple that with overwhelming projections of a poor buying season, and I can't see how the RIAA has much of a leg to stand on here.

  13. Re:Odd by Jimmy+King · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You bring up something that I think about somewhat often.

    On the one hand, the Internet is incredibly useful and provides so much information and entertainment which I believe everyone SHOULD be able to access. It would be a huge loss to society, imo, for people lose this.

    On the other hand, computers are complex. Networks are a complex part of computers. Security is a yet more complex part of computer networks. These are things that people spend years learning about and are constantly learning more about, yet here we are encouraging average, untrained people to stick computers which they are basically system administrators for on the largest, most complex, and hardest to secure network in the world? How much sense does that make?

  14. Re:Universities still need to police their network by h4x354x0r · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work at a U, and they charge the students, faculty, staff, departments, and everything else that has any money, an obscene amount of money for a network connection. Students ARE paying, and barely getting their money's worth, even when file sharing.

    --
    They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
  15. Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mumblestheclown · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This was, by my count, slashdot article #921431008 which slants positively for the "less power for rightsholders" side. I'm still waiting for slashdot article #1 where somebody presents a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightsholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers.

    Of course, it would be so very socially awkward to point out that virtually all policies slashdot have supported so far amount to in effect a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy, where the poor who are for whatever reason unable to use a p2p service and thus purchase CDs subsidize the entertainment of those who otherwise generally can afford it. Oh no. Pointing out such things is just not cool.

    1. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm still waiting for slashdot article #1 where somebody presents a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightsholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers.

      Sorry bud, but it ain't gonna happen. The "rightsholders" are the labels - this is only one of many reforms that need to be made. The recording artists should own copyright; they should NOT be "works for hire".

      Copyright lengths need to be brought back down to sane levels. I should NOT have to pay for a Jimi Hendrix download.

      Copyrights need to be registered again. Automatic granting of copyright is madness.

      Out of print works should not be covered by copyright.

      it would be so very socially awkward to point out that virtually all policies slashdot have supported so far amount to in effect a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy

      I don't know where you got the idea that Sony-BMI executives (who actually own the copyrights) are poor and the downloaders are wealthy.

      I suggest you read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. The following quote is abridged:

      File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these different kinds into four types.

      A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content.

      B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it.

      C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.

      D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.

      Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful type A sharing is.

      While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a good example.

      The fact is, the labels are on the wrong side of history. Independant (non-RIAA) artists have learned to use the internet to their advantage. The RIAA wants to use copyright law to kill the independant competetion, who use Lessig's "D" as a means of promotion.

      It isn't about music lovers "stealing" music -- study after study shows that "pirates" spend more money on music than non-pirates. It's about squashing competetion. The RIAA has radio, the indies have P2P, so the RIAA wants to kill P2P.

      Nobody outside the industry who understands the situation is on the RIAA's side.

    2. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by Tiberius_Fel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you have a solution that is a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers, I for one would be interested in hearing it.

      Here's the thing about copyright in the digital age. For software, music, videos, the marginal (per additional copy) cost is zero. Now, given that it takes no effort to copy it, and anybody can do it in his own home (or his parents' I suppose), how can you realistically stop that, without invading everyone's privacy? How can you even really know that they're doing it? Same thing with downloading it: the only way to know is to invade the privacy of the people by monitoring all their transfers. And even then, it's an imperfect system. How do you know what they have the right to down/upload? How do you deal with authorization? What about false positives? False negatives?

      Also, your argument about how it's a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy is a bit off-track. If the government(s) imposed a tax on everyone that was used to compensate artists for the creation, it will most likely be nowhere near as draconian as you make it seem. It's not like the government will charge a flat tax on everyone. Presumably, like other "progressive" taxes, it will be charged at a percentage, based on your ability to pay. Thus rich people will pay more and poor people will pay less. There will most likely be a group who pays nothing into this at all, like with income tax. Also, is it really a transfer to the wealthy? I know when you think of artists, you imagine the pop sensation of the day who has millions and millions of dollars, but there are still lots of "starving artists" out there.

      You're making the issue too emotionally charged by using terms like "regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy", which a lot of people emotionally oppose. But it's not really like that.

      --
      Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
    3. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This was (a) a news report about a judge quashing a subpoena, (b) followed by a quotation of an opinion by a commentator. There was no slant in the news, and it provides a link to the actual document. The expression of opinion was clearly denominated as such. I'm under no obligation to come up with a "plan". I have no training as a "planner", I'm a litigation lawyer. Me coming up with a 'plan' would be like asking me to do your plumbing.... I don't think you'd be very happy with the end result.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    4. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by skeeto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      AND the rights of the rightsholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers*.

      In the US, where the article takes place, there is no right for writers/artists/developers to be "fairly" compensated**. None whatsoever. In fact, it is quite the opposite: it is our right to share culture freely. The purpose of copyright, as described by the US constitution, is meant to serve the public by encouraging the growth of the public domain. The public temporarily waives their natural rights to freely share their culture in order to encourage writers/artists/developers to write/sing/develop. Before the digital age, this was a right individual people couldn't even exercise in the first place, so they were getting a real bargain out of it.

      The problem is that the temporary part is gone. Copyright terms are way too long, longer than human lifetimes. We really should be legally allowed to freely share everything from (at least) the 80's and before. All these works should be in the public domain by now. This is why you might see this slant on /., because copyright is way out of balance and unconstitutional. It needs to serve the public again. I bet you will find that many, if not most, works on P2P networks would be legal to share if we had reasonable copyright terms.

      * As a side note, you said "wrongdoers" to describe people breaking laws. Please don't mix up right/wrong with legal/illegal. These are completely unrelated.

      ** In other countries authors may actually have rights that don't exist in the US. For example, in the UK there are a set of non-transferable "moral rights" for authors. Since I live in the US I don't have to worry much about this, though.

    5. Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The idea behind copyright is that anyone producing a work owns the rights to it.

      No, it isn't. The idea behind copyright is to motivate creators to create (see: US Constitution).

      Registration is not necessary.

      Read Lessig's book. If is necessary - if I can't find a work's copyright holder, how can I get use to it?

      And would be impractical anyway.

      Funny, I had no problem registering domains, why should registering a copyright be any harder?

      Registering copyright is a nice extra option to make it easier to defend it if necessary.

      If you're not going to defend it, why do you need a copyright?

      Why should I always have to continue to publish and (in effect) distribute a work that I own?

      Because the very reason for copyright's existance is, as explained in the Constitution, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

      You should have no right to attempt to withdraw a work. You have no legal right to under the US Constitution.

      The last point however is getting tough for digital files: maybe I can re-sell that MP3 but how is it the original reproduction? Nothing physical is present.

      I don't believe bits should be copyrightable. That MP3 as well as the CD it comes from is just a long number, and I don't believe anyone should own any numbers. Numbers should be free; ALL of them.

  16. Re:Universities still need to MANAGE their network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Please note the change I made to your thread title. A huge difference exists in the concept and implementation of policing vs managing a network.

    Policing the network requires a mindset which assumes the students will do bad things and the administration is determined to catch and punish accused systems perpetrators.

    Managing the network, as your example shows, is the proper implementation of policies and configurations which allow the University community to effectively perform their work.

    Managing the network is more effective and provides a more collegial atmosphere.

    In my CS Department, all the information which could be used by the RIAA to track student usage of systems is NOT logged. Attempts to obtain unauthorized access are logged; but not successful authorized access. [All you security types can take your immediate objections and stuff them in your policy orifice.]

  17. Re:Odd by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Protip: In most places you would be charged as an accessory in that case. Unless you can prove they stole it. At the very least you could get charged with negligence.

    This is flat out bullshit. Criminally, It doesn't matter if the car was stolen or borrowed.

    This analogy is bad, because it's relatively simple to determine who the operator of the car is (spoofing cars is really hard), where it is not so easy to peer through the ether and see who using a PC, or even if that PC is the one you think it is.

  18. Re:Odd by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why don't you get your facts straight?

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  19. If you're paying $1224, you're getting shafted by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Informative

    We paid $125/semester. Granted, our school also didn't feel the need to keep up with the Jones WRT bandwidth.

  20. It's libertarian by Nerdposeur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the problem here is poor definition of "left" vs. "right."

    Ask a question pertaining to abortion, and most of the answers here are "anything goes," which sounds left-wing. Ask a question about the economy, and the answers are more "government isn't your sugar daddy," which sounds right-wing.

    I think the most common /. viewpoint is best described as "libertarian," which can be summed up as "leave us alone and don't tell us what to do."

    1. Re:It's libertarian by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the problem here is poor definition of "left" vs. "right." Ask a question pertaining to abortion, and most of the answers here are "anything goes," which sounds left-wing. Ask a question about the economy, and the answers are more "government isn't your sugar daddy," which sounds right-wing. I think the most common /. viewpoint is best described as "libertarian," which can be summed up as "leave us alone and don't tell us what to do."

      I think any attempt to distill a prevailing political orientation on Slashdot is doomed to failure. There is, in truth, a great deal of diversity here.

      The only common thread is that each of us is right.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  21. The (stupid) response to this is ... by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The sinister "three strike law" pushed by Sarkonazy and his subordinates creates a new category of "crime", that of "not securing properly one's connection", I shit you not. That way you can't use the defense of having been infected by a virus or having your router hax0red, it's your fault, you should have been a master sysadmin.
    Nevermind that megacorporations themselves can't be fucked to secure all their systems, you, Joe SixPC, are supposed to one up PCI/DSS or FIPS whatever, or you can't be allowed to the interwebs.
    Of course it's a massive pack of FAIL on so many levels, but that's what GWB's BFF has in store for us.

  22. Re:Odd by RulerOf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do IPs not specify identity?

    They just don't.

    Sure, you can build a system with multiple paths of registration and logging and authentication, but a majority of those processes can be spoofed or socially engineered.

    If you came up to me with a subpoena asking who had IP address 192.168.1.X on this day at this time, even if I still had the logs on my DHCP server, it would take a significant amount of forensics (IE, an audit of every laptop my friends or neighbors own) to determine who the culprit was.

    --
    Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
  23. Re:Universities still need to police their network by aztektum · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Simply putting up the money doesn't mean you have the right to impact other peoples use of the same infrastructure they're paying for. Downloaders aren't the only ones using the network.

    I agree that when you pay for something like an iPhone it's yours to do with as you please. A uni, however, is offering you a service for a fee. They're free to dictate terms on the use of that service. Don't like the terms, goto a different uni.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  24. Re:Odd by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you came up to me with a subpoena asking who had IP address 192.168.1.X on this day at this time, even if I still had the logs on my DHCP server, it would take a significant amount of forensics (IE, an audit of every laptop my friends or neighbors own) to determine who the culprit was.

    How do you "audit" to find out what a MAC address was temporarily set to?

    DHCP logs only get you from IP to MAC, they don't tell you anything about what that MAC is being used by.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  25. Re:Odd by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An IP specifies identity just like a home address does. Sure, the house may belong to me, and you have reasonable suspicion that it's me in there, but it could theoretically be ANYONE in the house. My mom, my wife, a neighbor, a burglar, whoever. That's why an address existing is not enough to positively identify me as the person who, say, crank called.

  26. Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer - precedent??? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Informative

    I defer to the expertise of an attorney, but unless this was a ruling by a court of appeals or above, there is no precedent set. Trial courts render judgments which can be referenced in litigation, but not cited as "precedent" on other legal cases... is this not correct? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    It's a precedent. It's not 'controlling' or 'binding' but it's a precedent.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  27. Don't buy (or download/copy) music. by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's as simple as that.

    Buy used CDs and DVDs. Preferably from local independently owned shops.

    The ONLY new DVDs I've purchased in the last year or so have been the FUTURAMA movies, because I want MORE FUTURAMA! And the best way for that to happen is to show Fox that it's to their financial advantage to make more FUTURAMA.

    However, other than those purchases, every DVD and CD I've bought for the past few years has been previously owned.

    I get the movies and music I want, and the MAFIAAs get not one penny of my money in return.

    When I get my newly purchased used discs home, CDs get ripped to iTunes, DVDs get ripped & stripped via MacTheRipper. Discs then get filed away for safekeeping, and my digital copies are used in their place.

    If you MUST download music and video, USENET is a much safer alternative. The alt.binaries hierarchies have just as much digital new content as BitTorrent, and the popular/most used newsgroups have dedicated users who will, if asked politely, take requests for content reuploads.

    Via NZB, downloads are as simple as one or two mouseclicks and are usually faster than BitTorrent.

    Oh, and they are almost completely untraceable. Making life for the MAFIAAs all the more miserable.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  28. Re:Chronicle of Higher Education by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually the correct permalink to the story is here. Sorry about that.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful