Slashdot Log In
Analysis of RIAA vs Princeton Student
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Apr 07, 2003 09:20 PM
from the dan-peng's-empire-of-evil dept.
from the dan-peng's-empire-of-evil dept.
An anonymous reader submits: "Joe Barillari, a computer science student studying
under Prof.
Ed Felten, posted an analysis on his blog of
the lawsuit
filed by the RIAA against a Princeton college student for running "Napster-like" networks. He
argues that the case doesn't quite live up to its contributory infringement
claim due to limitations in the DMCA. A good
read!"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What!? (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA can collect (Score:5, Insightful)
fp?
Re:RIAA can collect (Score:5, Insightful)
Challenging the legality of this case applies to Joesph Nievelt too. He had 1100 mp3 on his system, unlike the 650,000 that the RIAA stated. While Napster could *only* be used to search for mp3's this search and index tool is used for a lot of files other than mp3's.
Speaking as a present MTU student, if Joseph is expelled then MTU will be loosing a very talented programmer.He was ranked 4th in the nation in the Top Coder competition
Top Coder [topcoder.com] MTU News [mtu.edu]
Parent
Avoiding these situations (Score:3, Interesting)
_______
cheap web site hosting [cheap-web-...ing.com.au]
Re:RIAA can collect (Score:4, Insightful)
The elite, though comprising only 1% of the population (the exact percentages are arguable, though the figures I am using are in the right ballpark), control most of the wealth. (In modern America, one has to be worth at least $100 million to be a serious player.) The elite don't have to work per se; they spend their time making deals, which, although stressful at times, is much too stimulating to fall into the realm of institutionalized drudgery which people commonly refer to as "work."
Falling below the elite in status and power are what could be called "elite wannabes," "lackeys of the elite," or "wealthy rabble." These people are very wealthy by rabble standards.
Power and status are hardwired into human behavior. Before the rise of agriculture, when humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers, it was difficult to accumulate power and status, since possessions were limited by what people could carry with them. There were probably powerful lineages that got passed through the generations, but the gap between the powerful and everybody else was limited due to the nature of their lifestyle.
All this changed with the rise of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago. For the first time, people became sedentary, and they produced surpluses of grain which had to be defended. These surpluses meant unprecedented power for whoever was able to control them, and the first elite was born. For the first time, organized war became possible.
Howard Zinn's "A Peoples' History of America" describes the real dynamics at work behind the American Revolution. Rather than some idealistic "liberty and justice for all," the American Revolution was actually fomented by the American elite, who chafed under the British royalty.
It has been pointed out that by fighting an enemy, one takes on many of the characteristics of that enemy. Interestingly, it was World War 2 when America became a fascist power. By fascism, I am referring to Mussolini's definition: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
By 1945, state and corporate power in America had merged into what was later termed the "military-industrial complex," even though it wasn't until 1961 that Dwight Eisenhower gave his famous speech warning America about a system that had already been in place for 15 years.
Even though America had become fascist by 1945, there remained a vast amount of consolidation to do: there still remained the rabble and their pesky vote (an archaic carryover from the Revolutionary War era). The rabble had recently suffered two major traumas -- the Great Depression and World War Two, and had reached an unprecedented level of solidarity. The rabble had become dangerous, and it was necessary to manipulate them back into their customary position of helplessness, while at the same time enhancing the power of the elite.
It's important to realize that everything to come was perfectly "legal." (The elite have always defined what is "legal" and what is "illegal.") Further, there was no need for a "hidden conspiracy." Every iota of what the elite did was reported (and is still being reported) in the press every day. There was no need for the elite to get together and form a conspiracy: they already shared the same line of thinking. An analogy is the peace movement: nobody has to tell anybody what to do.
The elite strategy, which began during WW 2 and was mod
Parent
Re:RIAA can collect (Score:4, Insightful)
If the RIAA triumphs over these students, and they face punitive damages of such astronomical proportions, I would hope that they'd be put on 24/7 suicide watch.
Faced with a hopeless existence, that no matter how hard they work, they will still be in dept to a large faceless corporation, is a modern-day form of slavery. These guys would never achieve their dreams (assuming their dreams involved some sort of profit), and therefore, it's not hard to think that they might find such a life not worth leading.
I hope so very much that this doesn't occur...but if it were to happen, I would be at the head of the line to go and kick the crap out of those greedy RIAA bastards for causing the death of a poor student.
The parent is correct...legal or not, how can even the RIAA think this is okay? Oh...I forgot, cartels can do whatever they want.
As a final thought....remember in Austin Powers 2 when Dr. Evil asks the President (in the 60s) for $100B? They laughed him under the table. Yet, that's exactly what these people are facing...and its no laughing matter.
DOWN with the RIAA.
Parent
Suicide watch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh man has nobody the ability to see the silver lining in these most evil dark clouds? I am glad that this didn't happen to me, but you gotta ask yourself - what is your price? At what price do you say
The Gulf War II is costing, oh I dunno, maybe $1B a day. Ninety seven billion dollars will buy 9,700 days worth of $1M bad days - and for $1M I would do horrific things against humanity (assuming you classify the RIAA guys as human.) That Malvo guy has shown what a loser with no motivation and a gun can do
Now maybe Princeton college kids are wusses, maybe not, but if this guy was a Texas A&M or UT/Austin student it would really suck to be an RIAA executive after pushing him over the limit. If the guy's life is already ruined, and methinks that may be the case, suicide would be the LAST thing you need to be worrying about. I would be watching for Ryder trucks that smell like nitrates parked out in front of the RIAA building
This kid needs a copy of Sun Tzu. And a small bankroll (+/- $10,000.) And an attitude check. If he walks up to the RIAA guys cool as Cool Hand Luke and asks 'Are you really, really sure this is what you want? Reality check fellas, because I can blow shit out of proportion too
Sucks to be him, but if he is going to go down for $97B, he might as well make a statement worth $97B.
Parent
Re:RIAA can collect (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
96 what for INDEXING?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
You all probably know this, but I didn't until recently.Anyway:
He is being sued for a pure indexing service! No files supplied, no network established, just searching the (pre-existing) local princeton SMB-network. Which ofcourse is filtered, so it's only useful for Princeton-students.
If assisting people in finding information that has been put public by others can give you a 96 {insert redicilously large unit here} dollars fine, I'd f*cking flea the country allready!
This is madness. I'll go and get a criminal record now, to ensure that I'll never ever will get the chance to enter US territory.
Parent
Re:96 what for INDEXING?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Napster did indeed offer indexing, but Napster created the network that was being indexed. So Napster was liable for the damages.
This network however, was a pre-existing Windows SMB file-sharing network, which could operate (and indeed did) without the WAKE-service he is being sued for.
See the difference? Its like Google should be held resposible for copyright infridgement, when they merely locate a site that breaks copyright law. The siteowner is the one that should be sued, not Google. And indeed noone sues Google, so why suit for this?
It's stupid, stupid, stupid and anyone within their right minds should be able to see that.
Which ofcourse excludes the RIAA completely.
Parent
Does the RIAA even use Windows? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does the RIAA even use Windows? (Score:5, Funny)
The RIAA dictionary defines the Internet as:
Internet n. A pirating device used to transfer illegal intellectual property, trade encryption circumventing devices, and communicate plots against the RIAA. Theoretically capable of email, browsing and other network functions.
Parent
Solution (Score:3, Funny)
Not that it matters... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, based on some of the numbers that have been coming out over the last few years, they might actually stand to gain more by collecting the $96 billion from this one guy than by ending file sharing.
Re:Not that it matters... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Not that it matters... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not that it matters... (Score:5, Interesting)
I only hope that when the student wins, the judge awards his costs to the RIAA, making them pay for harassing him. Can that happen in the US? It sure does happen in the UK, which may be part of the reason that frivilous lawsuits are less common over there.
I wonder if the student can counter-sue for libel, slander, defamation of character, mental anguish, loss of grades, etc??
Parent
Re:Not that it matters... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok a little too graphic but the point is this; you're targeting millions, if not billions, of people who download illegal MP3s many of whom have not even heard about this case. Even if it succeeds in scaring people, or even distantly succeeds in having a law passed against these programs, whos going to be insane enough to enforce it? (Using China as an example) China has trouble as it is censoring webpages which it deems illegal, so how is China going to start censoring certain search programs without censoring Windows or web browsers such as Google which has a search programs?
This is the internet, not your hodgepodge hippie group with a bunch of college kids protesting against Vietnam that you can isolate and silence. Unless you want to try and enforce the Internet, which is suicide even if you had a couple trillion dollars and the world smartest programmers working for you, in the long run; this is going to blow over like a hyped up wimpy rain storm.
Parent
Re:Not that it matters... (Score:4, Insightful)
If anything, be happy. They know they can't really shut down Usenet and IRC, all the geek haunts shall be fine.
Parent
He'll go down for direct infr.--assuming he did it (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you misunderstood the analysis. It said he might get off of the contributory infringement charges, but the analysis specificly avoided the direct infringment charges. Simply because if the facts show the defendant is guily of direct infringement, then he will lose (that part anyway).
My worry is he may also lose on the contributory infringment (I don't think the paper said he would for certain win it), even in a small way, and the RIAA will use this precident to go after anyone who creates generic technology which may possibly be used for copyright infringement. The RIAA, MPAA, and friends are really the oppressors of the information age. Goodbye internet!
Parent
figure this will get /.ed so here's the summary (Score:5, Informative)
1. "Wake" differs fundamentally from Napster in that it (allegedly) indexed a pre-existing network, just as Web search engines index the pre-existing web. Napster, on the other hand, created the network on which its users traded music.
2. Napster's software indexed and shared only MP3 audio files. Wake, on the other hand, (allegedly) indexed all public documents on the network, which substantially expands its range of non-infringing uses.
3. "Wake," as a pure search engine (rather than a search-engine-plus-file-sharing-system, as Napster was), is protected by the DMCA, a fact which the RIAA does not address.
Search engine == Piracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
I couldnt agree with you less. The issue is the broad reaching implications of such a case. Wake is a search engine which searches for files. You can use google also to search for files on internet using advanced search. Does this make search engines illegal. I guess this is a chance to take RIAA head on. Give examples of google, Lycos search, Hotbot.... all these are search engines.
What RIAA says amounts to like, "This guy built the road on which trucks ferry pirated CD's... Arrest him!!"
Whoa what is it all coming to! I Hope the guy wins, or it will set a very very very bad precident. Meanwhile a stronger public campaign is needed against RIAA.Dont Buy CDs [dontbuycds.org]Parent
Re:figure this will get /.ed so here's the summary (Score:4, Informative)
The author didn't read the entire thing. Sure 17 USC 512(d) appears to offer protection -- but you don't get it unless you ALSO comply with 17 USC 512(c)(2), (c)(3), and (i). And I'm seriously doubting that those requirements have been met.
Here's the lowdown:
(i) Conditions for Eligibility. -
(1) Accommodation of technology. -
The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider -
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and
(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
(2) Definition. -
As used in this subsection, the term ''standard technical measures'' means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and -
(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;
(B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and
(C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.
Unless the student being sued can show that he complied with this, he does NOT get the DMCA safe harbor.
Additionally, it is claimed that he might fall under the portion of the safe harbor per 17 USC 512(d). Well, that's bad too. Check this out.
512(d)(3) says:
upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3)
That refers us to 512(c)(3) regarding notification, which in part says:
3) Elements of notification. -
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider
Well, what is a designated agent of a service provider? We only find out in 512(c)(2). It's not good:
(2) Designated agent. -
The limitations on liability stablished in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:
(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.
(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.
The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of agents available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, in both electronic and hard copy formats, and may require payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of maintaining the directory.
So, unless this guy has provided to the USCO contact information, etc. for an agent to receive takedown notices, he again DOES NOT GET THE DMCA SAFE HARBOR.
Without it, he's got a much harder case ahead of him. I don't envy him.
Parent
Does anybody... (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting read (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the way things are going though I think its only a question of time before the network and infrastructure admins are the ones held liable for the software running on their systems. Massive lawsuits against students are ridiculous and will damage public perception. How long before they go after the universities etc who at least will have insurance to cover the financial claims.
My reasoning.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My reasoning.... (Score:4, Funny)
I am writing to you on behalf of the PIAA(Pornographic Industry Association of America). It is known that you have 120Gb of illegally downloaded porn on your system. 1254 movies at $150,000 each and 6,134,563 images at $1000 each. In other words you owe us $6,322,663,000. I look forward to seeing you in court
Yours
The PIAAMAN
Parent
RIAA preemptive strike against Beowulf clusters... (Score:3, Informative)
Wake.princeton.edu was just the beginning. What the RIAA is trying to pre-empt is a university-sponsored effort to lash together 32, then 256 PCs for "testing networking, filing and interpreting research" according to an article in the campus paper, the Daily Princetonian! [dailyprincetonian.com]
How so? Well the "Prince" reveals that the university has just installed its first brand new Beowulf cluster [dailyprincetonian.com] to do just that!
Beowulf lurks around every corner, I tell you!
A few questions... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Has the RIAA left themselves open to a countersuit for such a poorly founded lawsuit?
2. How can we inform the public at large at how poorly this (and other) RIAA finding is founded.
3. The author repeteadly apply's internet conventions and precedents to the lan, this makes sense to me, but will it make sense to the average computer user?
Thats all folks,
Nalanthi
Short Version (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't look like they have a leg to stand on. They just need to hope for a relatively intelligent judge and/or jury, depending on how far this goes.
Number of songs... (Score:5, Interesting)
So my question - I suppose that the "list of files" contained multiple duplicates. Can you imagine how many individual copies of a given Eminem song MP3 there would be on a college campus?
Given that he mantained a list of networked files, and there were bound to be duplicates, how can the RIAA sue for (the number of songs in the list) x $150,000 (the maximum per song)?
if there were three copies of Dave Matthews Band's "Crash", would that not be suing for $450,000 for one song?
The RIAA Has No Case (Score:5, Informative)
The basis of Copyright Law is simple: A copyrighted work can not be used to make money by anyone but the copyright holder. If Mr. Peng were "bootlegging" copyrighted music - ie Making CDs and selling them for a personal profit - then yes, he would be in violation of Copyright Law. But this wasn't the case.
WAKE, the program Mr. Peng used to index publically available files on the campus network, is not a file trading system, like Napster or Kazaa. Like Google, it's just a search engine. All it does is let you know what's out there and where. To download something you find using WAKE, you'ld have to go about it in some other manner.
Also, the nearly 650,000 files that the RIAA claim's Peng was distributing weren't all his. How can they sue him for something that's not his? It's yet another attempt at a power grab by a bunch of rich folks who only want to get richer. Sad.
My prediction: While the RIAA might get some considerations, they won't get anywhere near what they want. Peng won't see any jail time, and the RIAA will have a black eye.
Re:The RIAA Has No Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm... I think you need to get your money back on that course... You are violating copyright law whenever you distribute copyrighted material without the copyright owners permission, unless your use falls under the category of fair use. In most cases, even copies given away freely are not allowed. Profit is a factor in determining your liability, but not your guilt.
Parent
Re:The RIAA Has No Case (Score:5, Informative)
That's not quite right. Even if you distribute the music for free you're still in copyright violation.
Copyright isn't just that the author is the only one that can make money off it. The copyright owner is the only persion that can distribute the work. Money doesn't factor into the equation.
Parent
Michigan Tech President Send Letter to RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot Mentioned (Score:5, Interesting)
The University grants students a "reasonable expectation of unobstructed use of these tools [telephones, the Internet]," knowing that the former will be used to call both classmates (academic use) and parents (nonacademic use), and the latter will be used both for class research (academic use) and reading Slashdot (nonacademic use). The University does not restrict use of the network for legal, non-academic file-sharing, so long as its bandwidth use is not excessive.
Bah! Slashdot is a great research tool.
Other than that, Way to go Princton, that's a great user policy. Please educate my cable and telephone companies.
Peng has troubles though (Score:5, Interesting)
But there are two strengths of the RIAA charges that the analysis glosses over:
1) Peng is charged with a substantial amount of direct copyright infringement on his own system(s). The liability he may have for these issues could easily force him to settle with the RIAA without ever bringing up the more-questionable "contributory infringement" copyright issues to court.
(That said, the RIAA charges are largely missing details of these charges, focusing instead on the sexier napster-like namecalling. It's not clear whether this implies the direct-infringement evidence is weak, or merely not useful for PR purposes.)
2) It seems to me that the 3 legal requirements the analysis outlines to declare something as 'contributory copyright infringement' should not be too hard for the RIAA to demonstrate: "that an act of direct infringement took place, that the alleged contributor knew about the act, and that the alleged contributor facilitated the act". If all three of these are demonstrated, the question whether the DMCA safe harbor provision comes into play is at issue, but I don't see that as providing Mr. Peng much protection if he knew about specific infringing incidents and did nothing but continued to facilitate them, particularly if he joined in and participated in them. This would clearly be up to a court to rule upon, but it is not an easy win for Mr. Peng.
I think the Barillari analysis demonstrates that someone in Mr. Peng's position might conceivably have a good case for operating a Samba indexing service on campus and not being guilty of contributory copyright infringement. I don't find the analysis particularly compelling that Mr. Peng won't get the axe. That said, I wish Mr. Peng the best.
--LP
Re:Peng has troubles though (Score:5, Insightful)
Ding, ding, ding! You win the prize. The RIAA does not believe it will collect nearly 100 billion dollars from a college student. They do, however, believe they can threaten this fellow with, let's say, 100,000 dollars in direct infringement liability -- a number they could probably get a judge to buy -- and get him to cave. NDA the settlement and then go tell Congress how this proves they're up against 100-billion-dollar "piracy emporiums" on Uni campuses.
You know, just like they seized the equivalent of 421 CD burners.
Parent
only $96 'Bil? (Score:4, Funny)
Can't he set up an online donation fund or something?
Meta-Article Critique:Too Many Links (Off-Topic) (Score:4)
I think the issue with this one is that the link to the article was just labelled "his blog", which I thought was just another contextual reference link. If the words "the article" which is the subject of this post, were hyperlinked, it would have been much less confusing.
Ok, sorry to be such a pain in the neck,
-If
Share C: (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of the shares were at C:\ level and gave full rights. Others had Gigs upon Gigs of pirated software and movies. It was somewhat of a competition between users and they became popular for having a good loot of files. Not particularly intelligent IMHO.
google cache (Score:5, Informative)
Re:google cache (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, he appears to have been pretty stupid about what he was doing. First off, the site shouldn't have been accessible from outside of the network. That was his first mistake. Second, his Search In field could be used against him. Notice they're pretty much all for probably illegal stuff (mp3 avi divx mpg, etc). However, it's the last box that's the worst for him. The filesize filter is a great idea, but why in hell did he put in those descriptions like "music" and "full movies"? Just put the filesizes in and let the user figure it out. Don't lob the RIAA/MPAA such an easy pitch to hit out.
With all this said, I still don't think they really have a case, because when push comes to shove, it was still just a search engine searching the campus network. But with as much money as they have, you don't really need too great a case. I wish the guy luck, but he did bring it on himself with some key mistakes.
Parent
Re:google cache (Score:4, Insightful)
You have valid points, however I question their relevance to the situation.
-Is it illegal to make a search engine available off a campus network? No. Unless Princeton network usage policy says otherwise, there is no issue here.
-Regarding the 'Search In' field, let's be frank. You and I both "know" that he was providing what essentially amounts to a warez crawler. Nudge nudge wink win. However, before the law, "patently obvious to anyone with common sense" is not sufficient evidence to convict someone or to win a case. I'll go out on a ledge and compare this to a 'fair use' scenario, where you may use, say, a certain file format to transfer illegal information, or cryptography to engage in illicit acts, but the mere fact that there are legitimate uses for these technologies, and that they were not designed explicitly with malfeasance in mind, prevents legal action against anyone using them just because they're using them.
Same with a search engine that explicitly allows qualifying strings such as 'mpg' or 'mp3'. I realize that it's a big leap between allowing me to enter these strings into google and providing a ready-made interface that already enters them for me, but I don't think the legal difference is that big, or relevant. And even if it were, I fall back on my above argument--there are legal mpg/mp3/avi/divx files not covered by restrictive copyrights. Disputes about illegal material should be handled between the copyright holder and the provider of the material--not a completely neutral intermediary.
Same applies to the filesize filter. He is obviously attempting to qualify searches, and I am positive that he was aware that a lot of these searches would be for pirated material. So what?
As long as the interface did not differentiate between the legality of content, but rather between file format types, I would be shocked to find that there is a case.
If the guy was sharing copyrighted material himself, well, my sympathies as I really dislike the RIAA, but that's a different matter entirely.
Parent
This program is just Archie (Score:4, Interesting)
Wake is effectively identical.
Archie was the grandfather of the web. One would hope a court would not declare it retroactively to have been illegal.
Re:For those who are interested... (Bad pun ahead) (Score:5, Funny)
I mean concidering that 95% percent of the new music they release these days is less than stellar; perhaps they really are advertising the fact that they represnt music with some bad beats
Parent
Re:For those who are interested... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Did anyone bother to ask... (Score:5, Insightful)
BAHAHAHA
Parent
Re:Did anyone bother to ask... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but he wanted to know how artists feel.
Parent
Re:Good Points, however.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. The case spelled out, even in the executive summary, is quite clear. In addition, the possible repercussions of this case are so significant that I can't imagine that Mr. Peng won't have the best possible legal council.
Think about it... If wake.princeton.edu is liable for $150,000 dollars for every copyrighted song they liked to, so is Google, Yahoo, Inktomi,... I guarantee that they (knowingly or not) link to more copyrighted material then wake did.
The DMCA spells out very clearly what a copyright holder needs to do to deal with copyright violations on the web. In this case, the RIAA is trying to be lazy & not have to send out thousands of cease & desists. Unfortunately for them, they have no legal ground to stand on.
Parent