Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

RIAA Apologizes for Incorrect Infringement Notice

Posted by timothy on Mon May 12, 2003 11:09 PM
from the oopsie dept.
Media Music
theradixhunter writes "News.com is reporting that the RIAA has apologized to the Pennsylvania State University for sending a threatening letter making an incorrect allegations of copyright violations. It appears that the automated system that the RIAA uses picked the term "Usher" and the extenstion ".mp3" on an FTP site hosting the work of Professor Emeritus Peter Usher and falsely assumed that the files were songs by the musician Usher. The university accepted the apology saying "that this was an honest mistake by the recording industry" and Spokesman Tysen Kendig said Penn State "remains committed to working closely with the RIAA"."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived.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.

RIAA Apologizes for Incorrect Infringement Notice 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Perfectly reasonable (Score:5, Funny)

    by YellowElectricRat (637662) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:12PM (#5942246) Journal
    I'd be happy if the RIAA deleted every file in the world containing the strings 'Usher' and 'mp3'. Sure, there could be innocent casualties, but think of the lives that would be saved...

  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nebaz (453974) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:13PM (#5942250)
    Is the RIAA going to pay for the legal fees the university incurred? Or the time they could have used to educate their students rather than going on a wild goose chase? I rather doubt it.

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hype7 (239530) <emptyskiesNO@SPAMmac.com> on Tuesday May 13 2003, @12:00AM (#5942474) Journal
      more importantly, it shows why the RIAA shouldn't have instant access to ISP details (Verizon case IIRC). They make mistakes; a judge is a relevant and important step in the way of preventing innocent people from being nailed for errors like this.

      -- james

      • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Gortbusters.org (637314) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @12:13AM (#5942526) Homepage Journal
        In other words we have corporations snooping in on our transport medium. It's a dangerous slippery slope, what's next... I turn on my computer and it says "Your internet may be monitored for quality assurance purposes."

      • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MisterMook (634297) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @02:49AM (#5942930) Homepage
        Its also a reason why the Patriot Act is a bad idea, because ALL people make mistakes and having access to information doesn't automatically make people informed. Checks and balances for all sorts of things are being thrown away in this country or legislated away in the interest of fighting "the war on piracy" or "the war on terror" and it just isn't a good idea. Accountability and review are GOOD things, the RIAA should have checked things BEFORE they sent a letter.

              • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Latent IT (121513) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @10:31AM (#5945162)
                Oxdung. A burglar won't get away with "but, your honour, his unlocked screen door was flapping in the wind, so I was able to go in his house without any effort".

                Well, no. But that's because they're a burglar - they'd get charged with *theft*, but not breaking and entering. Which is why it's called breaking and entering, and not just uh... entering. =p

  • MediaForce (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mrpuffypants (444598) <slashdot@tomservo.RASPnet minus berry> on Monday May 12 2003, @11:15PM (#5942260)
    Once again, I feel it's appropriate to slam MediaForce [mediaforce.com] and their gang of sleazebag nerds that write the software that does this.

    For shame....
  • ... But a victory nonetheless.

    I have nothing better to do while waiting for a kernel to compile, so...

    I find it to be the usual government style of action: act first, apologize later. They send out threat form letters to anyone who might be violating their stupid-*** laws, and then when they find they're wrong, they throw out a whoops, and they're done. There is something very wrong with that picture.

    (-:Stephonovich:-)

      • Re:A Small Victory, Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LamerX (164968) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:42PM (#5942392) Journal
        Oh so you think. Who's pockets do you think get lined to pass laws like the one that extends copyright indefinitely? Or how about the DMCA? Or how about the CDBPTA, or DPCPTA or whatever it's called? I'm sure that there were plenty of lobbyists in the government, and plenty of politicans that are former or still are CEOs or VPs. The problem today is that he who has the most money, can get into office, and pay lobbyists enough money, and run the biggest campaigns to get whatever they want done.
  • Why should the RIAA check their "sources"? They're making a lot of money/press by blackmail and coercion.

    Just a matter of time before they pick on the wrong people.

    It would be interesting to see how many time the RIAA systems access servers with restricted use policies: "Ve haf found der pirate!!!!" "No, you've trespassed on the private server of esquires Anastacia Lopez and Santana Aguilera of the law firm that prosecuted the tobacco settlement. Pay up."

    • Re:Why pay attention when your extorting? (Score:5, Funny)

      by micq (266015) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:23PM (#5942302)
      interesting.... maybe a honeypot for riaa? my voice, recorded over and over again, saying "What the fuck do you think your doing?" and published to the web as actual songs... then when they send me letters over and over again, I sue for harassment and undue mental stress... then change the server ip/name and start all over again...

      It's so brilliant.

      er... and oh yeah:
      (3) profit.

    • Re:Why pay attention when your extorting? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by evilviper (135110) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @12:27AM (#5942582) Journal
      Why should the RIAA check their "sources"?

      Well let's see... You put the name "Usher" in one of your own songs, and RIAA sends you the legal documents telling you to cease...

      Well, that would be adequate legal evidence that they have illegially downloaded YOUR copyrighted material, and YOU can sue them for damages. They are not law enforcement, they have no legal immunity.

      Nice change huh? Sue RIAA for pirating your music... Now if they hadn't sent the cease document, you would have a hard time proving all of this to a judge.

      And just think, either the RIAA will have to pay you a truckload of money, or it will set a precident basically relieving anyone of legal liability for files they have downloaded.
      • You have a really good point there. They seem to think that they are the only ones that own any copyrighted music.

        Even more effective would be to make a group called one of the words from the title of one of Usher's songs and then use Usher in the song name. That would get at least two hits on their theft-o-meter unless they fix it Real Soon Now.

        Of course, they don't have to download your material to see its title. That might throw a fairly large wrench into that idea. Plus, where would you put it? If it's on a P2P network, then they could argue that you intentionally made it available for download. Therefore, you would need to put it on a private FTP.

        Now, a harassment suit would stick a lot better. You could argue that the RIAA is sending you baseless C&D letters and get a court to order them to pay you for any damages that you might face. It's too bad that this university doesn't understand what a threat to free speach the RIAA is.

        You could even sue for mental anguish or some other outlandish thing that is impossible to disprove.

        Of course, if they apologized without you giving them permission to download the file, then THAT could be construed as infringement of your copyright. They would have to listen to the file to verify that it wasn't really Usher. Either that or trust you, but we all know that the RIAA doesn't trust people.

      • Re:Why pay attention when your extorting? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ColaMan (37550) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @04:49AM (#5943266) Homepage Journal
        Ha! Excellent Idea!

        Put your copyrighted file on a website with a click-through EULA :

        "Users downloading these songs must agree to pay the copyright owner *1 BILLION* dollars for each song downloaded. (Insert usual boilerplate here) To accept the terms of this agreement , press the "I Agree" button".

        Make sure you advertise with google your website and it's file for download. Used a sponsored link if you feel like it.

        The following steps :

        1) They click through, get file, send cease and desist.
        2) Me : "oh, you downloaded my file? Glad you liked it!excuse me, where's my BILLION dollars?"
        3) RIAA get their crack legal team out to defend themselves.

        End result is either:

        1) RIAA proves that click through EULA's are not valid. We can ignore Microsoft and their EULA's all we want after that, with the added happy bonus of using an Evil Corps lawyers against another Evil corp.

        or (my personal favorite)

        3) Microsoft weighs in on my side with their legal team and I get my billion dollars. Ok, I'll donate a few million to the Gates foundation, and the EFF ;-) Again the happy bonus of using an Evil Corps lawyers against another Evil corp.

        Maybe we could turn it into a sport - corporation-baiting, here we come!

      • Re:Why pay attention when your extorting? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JimDabell (42870) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @06:56AM (#5943568) Homepage

        Well, that would be adequate legal evidence that they have illegially downloaded YOUR copyrighted material, and YOU can sue them for damages.

        Actually, even if you ignore the fact that you are offering the file for download yourself, their error clearly shows that they only looked at the filename, they didn't listen to it. You don't need to download something to see the filename.

        Now, if somebody were to have, say, the first ten seconds of an Usher song as the start of an mp3, and then 20 minutes of somebody criticising that style of music, that would fall under fair use. It would also confuse them once they start to check that the music is actually infringing.

  • That makes it what, roughly a billion or so to go until they've atoned for stifling creativity and ruining music? Anyway, what kind of company would use software that sends out cease and desist letters automatically? Shouldn't there be at least SOME human intervention? That way, someone could say, "Hey, I've never heard of this Professor Usher. Did we just sign him? Maybe we should look into this. Or at least, I dunno...listen to the file first?"

  • I hope they accuse Darth Vader of piracy (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2003, @11:19PM (#5942282)
    ...because we know how he accepts apologies!

    • Yes, we do: (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2003, @11:55PM (#5942449)
      ::breathes::

      ::breathes:: What ::breathes:: in ::breathes:: the ::breathes:: name ::breathes:: of ::breathes:: the ::breathes:: force ::breathes:: do ::breathes:: you ::breathes:: think ::breathes:: you're ::breathes:: doing? ::breathes::

      ::outstretches hand::

      ::breathes::

  • subtlety of the term "temp employee" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swifticus (191301) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:20PM (#5942284) Homepage
    "We have withdrawn, and apologize for, the DMCA notice that had been sent to Penn State University in error. In order to safeguard against errors like this one, we have individuals look at each and every notice we send out. In this particular instance, a temp employee made a mistake and did not follow RIAA's established protocol, and we regret any inconvenience this may have caused. We are currently reviewing any other notices this temp may have sent."

    I think by "temp employee," they mean to say the person responsible is now fired. Doesn't sound like the RIAA really took responsibility for the incident either, but rather placed the blame on John Doe.

    • Re:subtlety of the term "temp employee" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by adsl (595429) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:28PM (#5942323)
      Simply amazing that the RIAA with all their highly paid Lawyers is actually run by temporary employees who have the real Power. LOL Are the RIAA for real, trying to blame some temp employee upon whom they gifted the ultimate powers of a Billion dollar organization..... Sort of sets up a defence, I am sorry I didn't actually download these illegal music files, it was done by a temp empoyee of mine who I have fired. Please accept my apologises like yours were accepted by Penn State University or is there one Rule for you and another fo me:)

  • I suppose.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by wo1verin3 (473094) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:21PM (#5942288) Homepage
    I suppose that this is too early to hope they're ending the shock and awe phase of their attack and moving in to the "we're sorry our bad" phase?

  • Penn should have pushed its advantages (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SysKoll (48967) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:21PM (#5942289)

    Penn acted as spineless morons.

    They should have slapped the RIAA fools with a libel lawsuit and requested an injunction to keep RIAA away from their computers forever or else. Then, only then, settled out of court if needed.

    You can't even trust academia to defend their own these days. Sheesh.

    -- SysKoll

    • Re:A new advocate (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Technician (215283) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @12:25AM (#5942576)
      Notice the Prof is now looking into the excess dammage by the DMCA and is contacting Congress? We need more of these to hit Congress.

    • Re:Penn should have pushed its advantages (Score:5, Insightful)

      by finkployd (12902) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @06:51AM (#5943548) Homepage
      Penn acted as spineless morons.

      With a member of the RIAA on the board of trustees, I doubt PSU will ever stand up to the RIAA, no matter what they do.

      You can't even trust academia to defend their own these days. Sheesh.

      Look at the state of higher ed today. It is all about corporate sponsership and pleasing their corporate masters. The students are just a necessary annoyance. At PSU our career services building is called the MBNA building and Pepsi products are the only soft drinks that are allowed to be sold on campus.

      Finkployd

  • horrible apology (Score:5, Funny)

    by asavage (548758) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:22PM (#5942291)
    By way of additional apology, the RIAA said it will send Peter Usher an Usher CD and T-shirt "in appreciation of his understanding."

    Worst apology ever.

  • Ha! Now that's ironic (Score:5, Funny)

    by Phoenix666 (184391) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:22PM (#5942294)
    The RIAA suing a professor for violating the copyright of a band named Usher, for which they should be getting sued to death by the heirs of Edgar Allen Poe.

    Ahem, no matter what I predict we will see the Fall of the House of Usher...

  • "Honest mistake" ?!?!?!? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drdanny_orig (585847) * on Monday May 12 2003, @11:26PM (#5942313)
    If you think about it, almost every word in the English language appears in some band's name somewhere. The mistake may have been "honest" (although I find that a questionable use of the word), but they're apt to be making it a lot in the coming months.

    And it would also appear that simply using a phony filename extension will be enough to fool the "automated system." From now on, I and all my partners in tune trading criminal activities will use .RIAA to denote classic .mp3, and .MPAA instead of .mpg or .mpeg, but only on even numbered days. Other times we'll switch 'em around. That oughta hold 'em off for a while.

    Oops! Did I just divulge a circumvention technique? Will I be liable for prosecution under DMCA or US-PATRIOT or some other silly-ass law?

  • Get this: The department has on its faculty a professor emeritus named Peter Usher whose work on radio-selected quasars the FTP site hosted. The site also had a copy of an a capella song performed by astronomers about the Swift gamma ray satellite, which Penn State helped to design.

    That kind of search could only be termed "shotgun".

  • database of RIAA ips? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lawrence_Bird (67278) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:27PM (#5942316) Homepage
    is there any database of RIAA server IP's or their minions? Just on general principles I would like to block them all. Their actions are damn close to illegal search and seizure, at least IMHO.

    • Re:database of RIAA ips? (Score:5, Informative)

      by heXXXen (566121) <cliffNO@SPAMpchopper.com> on Monday May 12 2003, @11:36PM (#5942359)
      the range of ip adresses that the RIAA owns [arin.net]

      just block them on your firewall

    • Re:database of RIAA ips? (Score:5, Informative)

      by sigh71 (240237) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @12:10AM (#5942516)
      if you are in the windows world there is an app out there called peer guardian that blocks all riaa/mpaa etc type ips from connecting to your machine...

      i think it gets its banned ip's from here

      http://www.simply-click.org/uploadertest/pg2.asp

      • Detailed instructions (Score:5, Informative)

        by Otto (17870) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @01:28AM (#5942752) Homepage Journal
        For those who want to use PeerGuardian, here's how:

        1. Download PG from here: http://methlabs.org/pg/
        2. Install it.
        3. Edit "C:\Program Files\PeerGuardian\Guarding.P2P" in a text editor.
        4. Go to http://www.simply-click.org/uploadertest/pg2_plain text.asp for the plaintext list of ranges to block.
        5. Copy and Paste it into the Guarding.P2P file. It must have no empty lines at the beginning of the file, and must have at least one blank line at the end of the file.
        You may want to leave off the last few lines from that webpage, this is a submission type of thing, and new submissions are added to the bottom of the list. Delete the bad lines from morons and such at the end. They get onto the list every so often.
        6. Startup PG and make sure it reads in the block list correctly.

        Congratulations, you're now blocking all TCP connections with over 50 million IP addresses, most of which are probably "the bad guys". I don't generally steal music or offer up music, I just don't like these people and so I block them on principle.

        Also, PeerGuardian supports a pgdat:// type of link, so as new addresses are changed, you can click the links on http://www.simply-click.org/uploadertest/pg2.asp to add them to PeerGuardian directly instead of manually editing the blockfile.
  • Yea, it's real easy to make false and unsubstantiatable allegations first, then apologize if someone their false when someone provides proof. That's alot easier and cheaper than actually verifying the validity of the accusation first. The RIAA doesn't give a flying fuck that this costs individuals and universities thousands of dollars. Not their concern -- after all, in the US, you're free to make false and ludicrous accusations against anyone without any proof.

  • Hosting Fake Files (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aSiTiC (519647) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:39PM (#5942373) Homepage
    This gives me a great idea. Just like RIAA/MPAA is flooding p2p networks with fake files we could flood their search methods with fake files.

    If every internet user with a webpage hosted 2-3 blank mp3 files with names like "BritneySpears-Baby.mp3", etc... The time it would take RIAA/MPAA to find all of them and verify them as blank would flood their capabilities.

    • Re:Hosting Fake Files (Score:5, Funny)

      by clickety6 (141178) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @06:41AM (#5943523)
      It's already happening. Every time I download mp3s that are marked Britney Spears or Back Street Boys or some other recent artist, all I get is a completely crap song that nobody in their right mind would download for free let along pay for... Where are the real songs?!?

  • cuckoo's eggs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rumpledstiltskin (528544) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:41PM (#5942384) Homepage Journal
    What happens when the RIAA's own cuckoo's eggs [hand-2-mouth.com] come back to roost? Today it was simply a misnamed file, but when another person posts a cuckoo's egg of a RIAA artist's song, what are the legal implications of the RIAA destroying a file that is non-infringing, as they are seeking?

  • The current state of things... (Score:5, Informative)

    by SpyderPSU (582418) on Monday May 12 2003, @11:45PM (#5942408)
    I'm an undergrad here at Penn State. Over the past few months they have been cracking down on copyrighted materials. They emailed the following letter to every student in the University:

    I have a serious message for you about making illegal copies of copyrighted material. While you may be tempted not to read this email, I suggest that you do so in order to better understand just what the risks and penalties are for violating the law.

    In recent years, high-speed computer networks and personal computers have made it easy to copy computer programs, movies, and recordings. Most of this material is copyrighted, which means the right to make copies is restricted. Making copies of any copyrighted material without the right to do so is against both state and federal law and University policy. Most people who make illegal copies know it is wrong, but are unaware of how severe the penalties can be.

    The US Copyright Law (Title 17 of the US Code) has very serious penalties for violations. These include significant fines for each copy. If you copy more than $1,000 worth of material, there are criminal penalties that include substantial fines of up to $250,000 and up to 10 years prison time for flagrant cases of infringement.

    The software, record, and movie industries are stepping up their enforcement of copyright laws. They are using computer technology to detect those who run servers or simply download something they have no right to possess. The likelihood of being caught is growing every day, and prosecutions will become more frequent.

    You may have downloaded copyrighted materials and not been caught, so you think you're safe from prosecution. I urge you to think again. Two students in Oregon were caught and prosecuted under the criminal statutes. One received a suspended two-year sentence, the other spent time in jail. A student in North Carolina spent 41 months in prison for copyright infringement. Messing up your future is a steep price to pay for music or a video.

    What happens at Penn State if you are caught? By statute, the University must immediately block your network access when we receive notification that a particular computer has been involved in a violation of the law. You may also be taken to court by the copyright holder or charged in the federal courts with a crime. That is not all that can happen. You should know that falsely certifying either that you have the right to material or have removed it can result in federal perjury charges as well as copyright infringement.

    What else does Penn State do? When we receive a complaint, student offenders are referred to the Office of Judicial Affairs and employees to the Office of Human Resources. Why? Because it is illegal and against University policy to infringe on someone's copyright. A student can be expelled and an employee terminated under University policy.

    The bottom line is that there is a potentially high price to pay for an illegally copied computer program, movie, or recording. Stealing is stealing and against the law, regardless of how you try to justify it.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

    Rodney A. Erickson March 31, 2003

    After the letter was sent 220 students were served notices from the Judicial Affairs Office. You can read more about it in the school newspaper. school newspaper. [psu.edu] In the article it says, "Rodack said it can take only one complaint against a student before dorm Internet connection is shut down and he or she is investigated."

    Has anyone else seen the same pattern at their school? Is this par for the course?

    Can this post get any longer?

    • Re:The current state of things... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by int69h (60728) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @12:50AM (#5942657)
      You'd think that a university should understand copyright better.
      Making copies of any copyrighted material without the right to do so is against both state and federal law and University policy.

      Hogwash. Making copies of anyone's copyrighted materials is permitted by US law. Distributing those copies is another matter entirely. I propose they rename it to copyanddistributeright.

      Sorry I forgot the block in the closing blockquote.
  • Penn State is working closely with the RIAA because Barry Robinson [psu.edu] a lawyer for the RIAA is on the Board of Trustees [psu.edu] so instead of representing the interests of the university and protecting the students, Penn State president Grahm Spanier has chosen to let a trustee influence university policy for the sake of the crooked organization he works for. I should post this AC but I really dont give an fsck. Penn State is dedicated to building unnecessary buildings while removing as much parking as possible. I now have to walk 20 mins from a staff parking lot to work so fire me before I die of heat stroke this summer ;)
  • Find RIAA employees.
    Hit them. In the face. Hard.
    When asked why, respond, "You look like someone who owed me money. Guess not. Sorry. Here's a Ultimate Fighting Championship T-shirt and DVD."

    It's great to be on board with the tactics used by our friendly copyright holders! Go Team!

  • Perjury? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SvnLyrBrto (62138) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @01:25AM (#5942746)
    Don't those DMCA threaten & harass letters almost always include a statement along the lines of: "I hereby swear, under penalty of PERJURY, than I am the copyright holder or the legal representative therof."???

    Said statement was obviously NOT true in this case, and I don't think those letters include a disclamier like: "unless I get CAUGHT lieing, and apologize afterward".

    So do those "swear under penalty of perjury" clauses have any real legal validity? If so, isn't it appropiate for some RIAA/Metallica drones to be shareing bunkspace with Charlie Manson in the very near future? After all, when a regular citizen does it, perjury is a pretty BIG deal. Why should the RIAA/Metallica enjoy any immunity?

    Or are those lines not, in any way, legally binding? If that's the case, why include them at all?

    cya,
    john
  • cat /dev/urandom > /var/www/Britney_Spears_-_Greatest_Hits_Track01.mp 3

    of course, that might actually be the same command they use to create their "music"

    • a little off-topic joke (Score:5, Funny)

      by enos (627034) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @12:29AM (#5942589)
      This reminds me of a joke:

      Jason has a conversation with his new neighbour Pete:

      J: So what do you do?
      P: I teach deducive logic.
      J: Huh?
      P: Let me demonstrate. Do you have a dog?
      J: Yes.
      P: From this I deduce that you have a family?
      J: Yeah.
      P: And a wife?
      J: Yeah.
      P: And if you have a wife, I deduce that you are heterosexual.
      J: That's amazing!

      After this Jason visits his friend Chris:
      J: I just found out this awesome field called deducive logic.
      C: Say what?
      J: Let me demonstrate. Do you have a dog?
      C: No.
      J: Then you must be gay.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.