Interesting to me that this post comes from a new member who has never commented before. Methinks I detect an RIAA troll. Any post that starts off "I hate the RIAA as much as the rest of you, but..." is usually highly suspect.
Will people now associate free software with illegal activities or supporting illegal activities? No, I think they will associate it with helping the Courts get it right about technology, instead of being subjected to a snow job of unrebutted 'junk science' by the RIAA's fake experts.
Let's also remember that the term "piracy" in copyright parlance means large scale reproduction of exact copies for commercial gain. None of these cases is about "piracy" and the RIAA's and MPAA's repeated use of that term is rank propaganda.
This is actually the basis of the flaw in the RIAA's reasoning. An IP address does not relate to an individual. Even if there is only one person normally associated with an IP address, that IP address, for that particular (illegal) action may not relate to the individual.
If you are assuming that someone is committing a crime, you have to also consider that they may be falsely laying the blame on someone else. Cracking the password on their router, spoofing packets, botting their machine, hacking their wireless, or even physically splicing a wire. After all, people have been physically splicing into other networks for decades (cable and telephone). Why assume that the relationship is a pristine one-to-one for IP addresses?
If you are going to burden someone with thousands of dollars in legal fees, you should have to have more than an IP address. Most people will simply fold under the weight of a lawsuit; that doesn't imply guilt, just poverty in the face of huge legal fees. Bingo. Plus the fact that the RIAA knows that the identifications of the IP address are often themselves wrong.
AFAIK, one point of the lawsuits against consumers is to try to generate fear with the general public. Now that the legal system is catching on to the shady RIAA tactics, it seems that what little momentum the RIAA was hoping for to alter the mindset of the general public, won't happen. I agree with everything you said, except that I don't know what "AFAIK" means. (My guess: "As far as I know"....?)
It is you who have lost sight of the big picture. The big picture is that we are a nation of laws. The reason I went into the legal profession is because I believe in the rule of law. Bringing frivolous cases based on misstatements of existing law and bogus evidence is contrary to the law.
Secondly, even before I went into the legal profession, I was raised to believe in fairness and decency and courtesy and humaneness.
I have never once suggested to anyone that the laws regarding protection of intellectual property rights should not be followed. I have been working in the copyright field for 34 years, and I have never once said anything like the bogus points you are trying to attribute to me.
Yes the RIAA has to work a "little bit harder".... small details like
(A) identifying the right people, who
(B) actually did infringe their copyrights, and then
(C) handling the matter in a lawyerlike manner instead of an extortionate gangsterlike manner.
Mr. Beckerman: Could you also accompany the summary with a short comment about the significance of the legal actions? For example, I learned (from your response to another question) that it is highly unusual for a judge to issue the order to show cause herself. I'm also interested in the sibling post's question about precedence: if the case is dismissed, could it then be used throughout the federal circuit, or is it limited to DC, for example?
We really appreciate everything that you do. I just think adding the information will help this (lay) audience understand its significance better. 1. John Doe #3 made a motion. The usual procedure would be for the Court to wait for the RIAA's opposition papers. Instead the Court made some findings indicating an awareness that the RIAA may not have been forthcoming in its original papers, and set an accelerated schedule, and raised the point that if the subpoena was wrongly issued, it was wrongly issued as to ALL defendants, not just Doe #3. It's just unusual for a Judge to take on that burden.
2. If the Judge grants the Does' motion, and does so with sound reasoning, the decision will reverberate throughout the country, and may lead to the end of the RIAA's John Doe litigations, which is where it all starts.
It can't help the RIAA. Either it will hurt them, or things will be as they are now. But there's no scenario under which the RIAA comes out of it better because of the Judge's signing the order to show cause. The RIAA will now probably spend $10k or more "showing cause". Meanwhile, it's evidence is defective, and its legal arguments are nonexistent.... so it's unlikely that the Judge will find it has established "cause". Most likely this ex parte order, which never should have been signed in the first place, is going bye bye.
Here's an 18 year old girl they have been inadvertently pursuing for 4 years, based on 48 song files she downloaded when she was 13 and 14 years old.
This past summer they inadvertently filed a summary judgment motion against her, trying to get a judgment for $36,000 so that she can start off her adulthood with a bankruptcy.
The legal system has always made sense in respect to these issues. The only reason why the RIAA got as far as they did as quickly as they did is that they had the element of surprise. (In a military sense.) They were able to use that surprise of legal threat to do quite a bit of damage before the legal war machine spun up to full defensive power. Now that things are spun up, the system is slowly beginning to repel the RIAA attacks. From your mouth to God's ear.
Ooh, and all this can go away if the Universities pay Audible Magic. Now, they wouldn't have anything to do with the current RIAA shakedowns, would they? Very astute, DingerX.
The jury awarded the record companies $220,000. She has made a motion to set aside the verdict. If her motion is not granted, she will be filing an appeal.
This may be something unique to the University of Oregon, but I would be curious to see if the challenge of the subpoena would stand when applied to other universities.
The network architecture at my college was similar. However there were more specific rules involved. In the case of my dorm, each student was assigned a particular IP address, even a physical port in the room. There is also an agreement that is signed by the student that they agree to control access to that access point. (Lots of other nitty details, no routers...etc)
Without us falling into the trap of confusing what a judge would decide vs what we as a tech savvy community would want, would it be possible for a University's own access policies to be used against it in a refusal.
For UoO, they do appear to have valid claim to deny the request, but it seems that if they were more 'precise' in delivering internet access then they would not be able to refuse the subpoena. Actually, the holes in the RIAA's "identification" process are not only applicable to all of the other colleges and universities targeted, they're applicable to all of the "John Doe" cases, even those dealing with commercial ISP's.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting to me that this post comes from a new member who has never commented before. Methinks I detect an RIAA troll. Any post that starts off "I hate the RIAA as much as the rest of you, but..." is usually highly suspect.
:)
Yeah, I set my filter to exclude almost all "Anonymous Coward" posts, because I have found that they are usually no good.
Let's also remember that the term "piracy" in copyright parlance means large scale reproduction of exact copies for commercial gain. None of these cases is about "piracy" and the RIAA's and MPAA's repeated use of that term is rank propaganda.
Good explanation, AC. Why don't you stop being "Anonymous" so I can get to read your stuff more often?
It is you who have lost sight of the big picture. The big picture is that we are a nation of laws. The reason I went into the legal profession is because I believe in the rule of law. Bringing frivolous cases based on misstatements of existing law and bogus evidence is contrary to the law.
Secondly, even before I went into the legal profession, I was raised to believe in fairness and decency and courtesy and humaneness.
I have never once suggested to anyone that the laws regarding protection of intellectual property rights should not be followed. I have been working in the copyright field for 34 years, and I have never once said anything like the bogus points you are trying to attribute to me.
Yes the RIAA has to work a "little bit harder".... small details like
(A) identifying the right people, who
(B) actually did infringe their copyrights, and then
(C) handling the matter in a lawyerlike manner instead of an extortionate gangsterlike manner.
2. If the Judge grants the Does' motion, and does so with sound reasoning, the decision will reverberate throughout the country, and may lead to the end of the RIAA's John Doe litigations, which is where it all starts.
It's normal to set a deadline.
What's highly unusual is the judge issuing an order to show cause on her own.
It can't help the RIAA. Either it will hurt them, or things will be as they are now. But there's no scenario under which the RIAA comes out of it better because of the Judge's signing the order to show cause. The RIAA will now probably spend $10k or more "showing cause". Meanwhile, it's evidence is defective, and its legal arguments are nonexistent.... so it's unlikely that the Judge will find it has established "cause". Most likely this ex parte order, which never should have been signed in the first place, is going bye bye.
The judge is ordering them to give her whatever reasons they have as to why she shouldn't vacate the order.
Here's an 18 year old girl they have been inadvertently pursuing for 4 years, based on 48 song files she downloaded when she was 13 and 14 years old.
This past summer they inadvertently filed a summary judgment motion against her, trying to get a judgment for $36,000 so that she can start off her adulthood with a bankruptcy.
I'm quite skeptical. In fact I'm sure it's not true.
Your $10,000 figure is baloney. Didn't you say you knew people who've settled for that amount? You should correct your prior statement.
I am skeptical about the Parent post. I have never heard of settlements being as high as $10,000.
I'd sure like to see where those "legislators" get their political contributions from.
I don't think she did it. Period.
Yep, you can donate here.
The jury awarded the record companies $220,000.
She has made a motion to set aside the verdict.
If her motion is not granted, she will be filing an appeal.