Reading through this story, it continues to shock me -- not what asshats the RIAA etc are -- but that we here, at the collective hive-mind that is Slashdot, haven't already come up with a way to help people wrongly being prosecuted by them and their sleazy lawyers.
There seems to be a clear pattern to their targets - people who know relatively little about technology and who are more likely to settle than battle it out in courts. I'd argue that we need to help these people out.
About halfway down the story, the defendant, Tanya Andersen is said to have looked up information online, hoping to find information on similiar cases.
Why don't we, through/., set up a site, aggregate information about similiar cases and build up a body of evidence to "[...] show that the RIAA engaged in serial bad-faith lawsuits [...]". In the long run, the space could serve as a place for debate on the current copyright regime, the inflated monetary value assigned to the songs/movies downloaded, etc.
I'm sure that some of us here are lawyers as well - maybe some time could be spent decoding the various court documents/legal stuff that the RIAA sends out - a distributed legal advice centre (cue Beowulf joke)...
This is just an idea, of course - but I'd be happy to get involved in whatever way I can. I have some small amount of expertise in building websites - perhaps that's the first place to start... Anything I can do to help, let me know.
Other areas where people can help would be:
(1) Setting up panels of expert witnesses to work in the two important areas: (a) p2p file sharing and MediaSentry's junk science, and (b) hard drive forensics.
(2) Money (see, e.g., defense funds, but it is important for someone to set up a major legal defense fund to assist with compensating lawyers to defend these folks. It is amazing to me that the internet based corporations haven't yet seen the importance of funding the defense of these cases which, if they are lost, will establish horrendous legal precedents for anybody hoping to do business on the internet.)
The only thing legal about any of this is abuse of process. What you are looking at is mass produced fraud that should result in disbarment of everyone involved and jail time for the ring leaders. They knew what they were going to do to "dolphins" like Anderson with their "drift net" tactics. They also thought they were aiming for a less sympathetic but more pliable target when they targeted "rich" college kids. In all cases, the victims were stripped of their life savings if they caved in and of everything now and forever if they fought. The RIAA music sharing cases are one of the most degraded abuse of the legal system by the rich and powerful ever.
It's time for a backlash. The emails and reports behind this fraud should be ripped open to expose the guilty at the big music publishers. Well spoken, gnutoo. I share your sentiments.
Mr Gabriel, for the RIAA, asserts that: we could have pursued the case until the end of time.
That's interesting in itself, considering that most people who engage in litigation only pursue a case until they win; is he in fact implicitly admitting that the RIAA could not have won the case, merely strung it out for as long as it took to bankrupt everyone else involved? Yes. That's his specialty. Stringing cases out until the end of time, until everyone else -- including his clients -- are bankrupted.
Don't start driving them away. Don't worry, One_Childish_N00b, no one's driving me away.
I'm sure the AC comment to which you were responding was a paid RIAA troll. (They don't like me much.)
By the way, the answer to the question is:
I've been working in copyright law since 1974. I am not against copyright law. It's the RIAA lawyers who are against copyright law, fighting hard to rewrite it in their own economic best interests despite a clearly written statute, decades of caselaw, and unanimity among legal scholars. See, e.g. their ludicrous "reconsideration" motion in Arista v. Does 1-21. They made a similarly ludicrous "reconsideration" motion in Atlantic v. Brennan, which the Judge rejected in short order, even though the defendant never even responded to the motion. The judge adhered to her previous, correct, decision.
an organisation that is not the RIAA It is a clone. The 4 companies who brought the suit are the exact same "Big 4" who have launched a plague of lawsuits in the US.
Can't the editor even RTFA! Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) not the RIAA. We are not the United Planet Of America just yet you know. . OK. Here's a correction.
Doesn't this sound suspiciously like extortion? "buy our 'partner's' software/protection or we'll sue you for infringement" I wonder what kind of kickback they're getting on it? Yeah, to me it sounds exactly like extortion. See what happened when Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, paid $76,000 in "protection" money to Dr. Jacobson's business partners.
Exactly how is finding "the person associated with [an] IP address at [a] date and time" different from determining who was "using a given computer at a given time"? The person using the computer, if he were using it to commit copyright infringement, is an infringer, while the person whose internet access account would not be. If it were my internet access, but you plugged your laptop in at my dorm room, and used it to infringe someone's copyright, you would be the infringer, and I would be blameless. But I would be the one the RIAA sues. The Magistrate doesn't realize what morons he's dealing with. Marshall's IT guy is aware.
1. The subpoena asked for the identity of the infringers.
2. The university argued it can't identify the infringers, and spelled out in the IT guy's affidavit why it's impossible, without conducting an elaborate investigation.
3. The magistrate ruled 'they're not asking you for the identities of the infringers', they just want to know who's associated with the IP address.
4. He is apparently unaware of the RIAA equation, "whoever is associated with the IP address" = "the defendant" = "the infringer". He is assuming the RIAA lawyers conduct themselves like real lawyers.
That's "Country". And what do you mean, where is he? He's what we like to call "the submitter". Thank you, LMacG.
What did you think of the IT guy's affidavit? I felt it was a model of clarity, explaining to the judge that the RIAA doesn't have a case against these kids. The IT guy at the University of Arizona did a good job on that same issue but the school, like idiots, just caved in and turned over the information, ignoring the motion to quash which one of the students had filed.
First of all, this ruling was handed down two months ago, so I'm not sure why it's being discussed now. But second, the Fifth Circuit struck down exactly the same part of the same law in 2000. See Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, 204 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2000). Though it hasn't made it to the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit is the only federal appellate court to consider the issue, no court will allow Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity under its Art. I powers. And Copyright is not a Fourteenth Amendment issue, so there's just no way to do this. This really isn't a big deal. I agree with you on both counts, nenya.
But as our resident high profile copyright lawyer..." In case you haven't been watching Ray's blog, it has been a VERY busy week, and he has evidently been doing not only the typical lawyer hours, but keeping up with a dozen or so RIAA cases, answering emails, and saving western civilization from what appears to be an increasingly out of control Richard Gabriel. Let him have Sunday evening off. Thanks, rozthepimp. Technically it's Monday morning so I guess I'm back. There are plenty of things in western "civilization" I could live without, but one of the really good things is the constitution, so let me take a whack at simplifying/oversimplifying: the Constitution is our supreme law; any statute that conflicts with the Constitution is invalid; the 11th amendment to the Constitution says you can't go into federal court to sue a State, states are immune; the 14th amendment creates an exception to the 11th because it says if a State is systematically depriving some people of their rights (as, e.g., denying people's right to an equal education because of their race) then you can go into federal court to sue a State; a statute which authorizes people to go into federal court to sue a State must therefore be based on the 14th amendment; because this statute (authorizing copyright suits against states) was not based on the 14th amendment -- i.e. not based on systematic deprivation of some people's rights -- then it's an invalid statute.
It's really such a simple proposition, they probably knew it was unconstitutional when they enacted it, but did it anyway to placate some big contributors and lobbyists from the RIAA/MPAA crowd.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how do we know this guy is homeless? Yes you are missing something. The footnote on page 4 of the decision which notes that the RIAA lawyers eventually discovered that the defendant lives in a homeless shelter.
One has to ask what quality of law[ye]rs the RIAA hire? The task of chasing thousands of suspected downloaders is hardly cutting edge. I know the answer to that.
I disagree with you, UnknowingFool..... A pattern of misconduct in other cases is quite relevant. Also there is no way this was mere sloppiness. They clearly made a misrepresentation to the Court. The Magistrate Judge had it right. I personally think Judge Baer knew the Magistrate Judge had it right, but felt a little squeamish about imposing sanctions, so he gave them "the benefit of the doubt" as "officers of the Court". I don't think he'll be giving them the "benefit of the doubt" next time.... and knowing these lawyers, there will be a next time.
these RIAA people should also get sanctions for doing what they do It will happen. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes the next time Judge Baer catches them in a lie.
It's just like when fishing fleets trawl the bottom of the ocean trying to catch scallops or mussels... they end up dragging all kinds of other species into the boat.
RIAA is looking for file-sharers, and if they dredge up the occasional homeless man, or dead person, or bubble-boy... no biggie... just move on. Interesting you should say that, because the RIAA has itself used the term "fishing with a net". Actual quote from RIAA spokesman:
"When you go fishing with a net, you sometimes are going to catch a few dolphin." Dennis Roddy, "The Song Remains the Same", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept. 14, 2003, quoted in amicus curiae brief (pdf) of American Civil Liberties Union, Public Citizen, American Association of Law Libraries, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma, submitted in Capitol v. Foster, 2007 WL 1028532 (W.D. Oklahoma 2007), brief at page 8.
Asking the school to divulge who was assigned the IP address is reasonable, assuming they have proper evidence to submit the subpoena in the first place.
(Yeah, big IF!) Yeah, very very big IF, since they've admitted they haven't a clue as to who committed the alleged copyright infringements.
Slashdot Mirror
Other areas where people can help would be:
(1) Setting up panels of expert witnesses to work in the two important areas: (a) p2p file sharing and MediaSentry's junk science, and (b) hard drive forensics.
(2) Money (see, e.g., defense funds, but it is important for someone to set up a major legal defense fund to assist with compensating lawyers to defend these folks. It is amazing to me that the internet based corporations haven't yet seen the importance of funding the defense of these cases which, if they are lost, will establish horrendous legal precedents for anybody hoping to do business on the internet.)
The RIAA files the suits. The record companies are named as the plaintiffs.
I'm sure the AC comment to which you were responding was a paid RIAA troll. (They don't like me much.)
By the way, the answer to the question is:
I've been working in copyright law since 1974. I am not against copyright law. It's the RIAA lawyers who are against copyright law, fighting hard to rewrite it in their own economic best interests despite a clearly written statute, decades of caselaw, and unanimity among legal scholars. See, e.g. their ludicrous "reconsideration" motion in Arista v. Does 1-21. They made a similarly ludicrous "reconsideration" motion in Atlantic v. Brennan, which the Judge rejected in short order, even though the defendant never even responded to the motion. The judge adhered to her previous, correct, decision.
And I'm not very bright.
1. The subpoena asked for the identity of the infringers.
2. The university argued it can't identify the infringers, and spelled out in the IT guy's affidavit why it's impossible, without conducting an elaborate investigation.
3. The magistrate ruled 'they're not asking you for the identities of the infringers', they just want to know who's associated with the IP address.
4. He is apparently unaware of the RIAA equation, "whoever is associated with the IP address" = "the defendant" = "the infringer". He is assuming the RIAA lawyers conduct themselves like real lawyers.
What did you think of the IT guy's affidavit? I felt it was a model of clarity, explaining to the judge that the RIAA doesn't have a case against these kids. The IT guy at the University of Arizona did a good job on that same issue but the school, like idiots, just caved in and turned over the information, ignoring the motion to quash which one of the students had filed.
The 14th amendment was about civil rights. It really shouldn't even enter into the equation.
the Constitution is our supreme law;
any statute that conflicts with the Constitution is invalid;
the 11th amendment to the Constitution says you can't go into federal court to sue a State, states are immune;
the 14th amendment creates an exception to the 11th because it says if a State is systematically depriving some people of their rights (as, e.g., denying people's right to an equal education because of their race) then you can go into federal court to sue a State;
a statute which authorizes people to go into federal court to sue a State must therefore be based on the 14th amendment;
because this statute (authorizing copyright suits against states) was not based on the 14th amendment -- i.e. not based on systematic deprivation of some people's rights -- then it's an invalid statute.
It's really such a simple proposition, they probably knew it was unconstitutional when they enacted it, but did it anyway to placate some big contributors and lobbyists from the RIAA/MPAA crowd.
what it means? You should have submitted it to "Ask Slashdot".
NPR's "Marketplace" show had a great series on the RIAA.
But I'd better not say.
The case was dismissed without prejudice... which means they can sue the poor guy again.
I disagree with you, UnknowingFool..... A pattern of misconduct in other cases is quite relevant. Also there is no way this was mere sloppiness. They clearly made a misrepresentation to the Court. The Magistrate Judge had it right. I personally think Judge Baer knew the Magistrate Judge had it right, but felt a little squeamish about imposing sanctions, so he gave them "the benefit of the doubt" as "officers of the Court". I don't think he'll be giving them the "benefit of the doubt" next time.... and knowing these lawyers, there will be a next time.