Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MIT Student Plans to Take on RIAA

Posted by Zonk on Wed Jan 23, 2008 05:04 PM
from the go-fightin'-nerds dept.
Businesses Government Media Music The Courts Education News
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "MIT's online newspaper, The Tech, reports that a student named as a John Doe by the RIAA is planning to fight back against their questionable legal tactics. The anonymous student told The Tech that he is 'the victim of a fishing expedition by the RIAA,' and is 'disappointed that MIT isn't going to step up ... Other schools like Boston University and the University of Oregon have resisted RIAA subpoenas of student records more actively than MIT has, he said'. Maybe his attorneys will be able to get some assistance from some of the Harvard Law School students in Professor Nesson's 'Evidence' class, who have been assigned — as part of their coursework — the drafting of a motion to quash an RIAA subpoena."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Boston University Student Challenges RIAA 381 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A Boston University student identified only as one of the 21 'John Does' in Arista v. Does 1-21 has challenged the RIAA's alleged right to get his or her identity from the school, bringing a motion to vacate the ex parte discovery order obtained by the RIAA, and to quash the subpoena served on the university. John Doe's court papers (PDF) argue, among other things, that the RIAA's papers are 'based on a flawed theory that having copyrighted music files on an individual's computer or on an assigned folder on Boston University's server is a "distribution" of such copyrighted music files, where such folder is merely accessible by others.'"
[+] News: U.of Oregon Says No to RIAA 241 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The University of Oregon has filed a motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena for information on student identities in what is believed to be the first such motion made by a university with support from the state Attorney General. The motion (pdf) explains that it is impossible to identify the alleged infringers from the information the RIAA has presented: 'Five of the seventeen John Does accessed the content in question from double occupancy dorm rooms at the University. With regard to these Does, the University is able to identify only the room where the content was accessed and whether or not the computer used was a Macintosh or a PC ... The University cannot determine whether the content in question accessed by one occupant as opposed to another, or whether it was accessed instead by a visitor.' The AG's motion further argues (pdf) that "Plaintiffs' subpoena is unduly burdensome and overbroad. It seeks information that the University does not readily possess. In order to attempt to comply with the subpoena, the University would be forced to undertake an investigation to create discovery for Plaintiffs — an obligation not imposed by Rule 45. As the University is unable to identify the alleged infringers with any accuracy, it cannot comply with its federal obligation to notify students potentially affected by the subpoena. One commentator has likened the AG's argument to saying, in effect, that the RIAA's evidence is 'rubbish'."
Submission: MIT student plans to take on RIAA by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032)
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.

MIT Student Plans to Take on RIAA 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Given the RIAA guilty until proven innocent "John Doe" should be able to present what could be a landmark case against the RIAA. Though IANAL sticking to that basic premise would seem to be the most effective way to nullify the MAFIAA.

    • Re:Guilty till proven innocent? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mitreya (579078) <shurikNO@SPAMscorch2000.com> on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:40PM (#22160010)
      Given the RIAA guilty until proven innocent "John Doe" should be able to present what could be a landmark case against the RIAA. Though IANAL sticking to that basic premise would seem to be the most effective way to nullify the MAFIAA.

      Bah, few people here are lawyers, but even a layman like me has learned that RIAA files civil lawsuits. In a civil lawsuit there is no "guilty until proven innocent" or "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof is to show 51% likelihood of one party being right (kinda like a speeding ticket decision made by a judge. There's no assumption you're innocent, he goes by who seems more credible).

  • Legal defense fund? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Meoward (665631) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:12PM (#22159734)

    If this guy has a legitimate legal defense fund, I'd throw a few bucks his way.

    (I won't throw money at "John Doe" though. X's bass player probably has enough cash as it is... )

  • Sue MIT (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:28PM (#22159916)
    Sue MIT for not protecting your student records properly. You can use that settlement money to pay off the RIAA.

  • Be Smart About This (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:33PM (#22159960)
    It will be easier for the student to win this case if he was smart enough not to use his own name, nickname, myspace page name, or personal e-mail address name as his [name]@kazaa.com file sharing nick.

    Instead, use the name of the jock down the hall that you hate anyway.

    • It will be easier for the student to win this case if he was smart enough not to use his own name, nickname, myspace page name, or personal e-mail address name as his [name]@kazaa.com file sharing nick.
      This kind of implies that you think he's actually "guilty", has something to hide. Is this what you're saying?

  • Good Homework Assignment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by amasiancrasian (1132031) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:40PM (#22160012)

    Maybe his attorneys will be able to get some assistance from some of the Harvard Law School students in Professor Nesson's 'Evidence' class, who have been assigned -- as part of their coursework -- the drafting of a motion to quash an RIAA subpoena."
    How's that for applying classwork in a practical application? More schools should be doing what Harvard is doing instead of succumbing to the demands of the RIAA. I wish I had a professor like that...

  • John Doe (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrCopilot (871878) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:59PM (#22160338) Homepage Journal
    I thought that dude was dead.

  • Recording Industry vs The People (Score:5, Informative)

    by CodeBuster (516420) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @08:07PM (#22161830)
    He should definitely let his counsel know about Recording Industry vs The People [blogspot.com] which is a wonderful source of briefs, documents from related cases, decisions, and other strategies and tactics used by others defending cases against the RIAA and the music labels. Perhaps NewYorkCountryLawyer [slashdot.org] or his firm can help him out if can scrape together a few bucks to pay their fees.

  • New legal justification open downloads of music (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FromTheAir (938543) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @10:49PM (#22163022) Homepage
    Maybe this idea will get to the right minds perhaps one of you know who they are and will create awareness. When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for. I don't think the music industry understands this; apparently this has not been clarified in the courts. We are not buying the piece of plastic they are printed on.

    It does not matter what the source is or what format we have it in. We are purchasing a license to listen at our leisure to a song or watch a movie. We can have a thousand copies because we can only listen to one at a time. Somebody needs to argue this in court. That we are in fact purchasing a license to listen, not a piece of plastic or a digital file of zero's and ones.

    This is the New legal justification for open downloads of music or copy righted material:

    In fact the record labels need to, I think legally provide, free downloads of music. The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media.

    I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.

    Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.

    Truth is we don't need the record companies anymore. We can all buy from the artists direct and vote with a link what is most popular. I would be happy to pay the creative talent directly without the huge middle man cut. Another things is corporate pressure to maintain the status quo system cannot be put on artists by large corporations.

    Hopefully someone will get this into the hands of the attorneys for the defendants.

    Technically based on quantum physics there is only one copy of a piece of music in the universe. This exists in the intangible realm; all tangible manifestations of this one copy are simply a physical conveyance of this one real instance. It is an information universe, everything is ultimately just information.

    • Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MooseTick (895855) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:11PM (#22159706) Homepage
      I disagree. If he was found having 10000+ files on his hard drive, then he would be screwed. A single file with no documentation would not be a big deal.

      If that were applicable, then Wal-Mart could accuse me of being a shoplifter and sieze all my assets and I'd be liable for all the items that I don't have reciepts for that they stock.

      • A single file with no documentation would not be a big deal.


        Normally, I would agree, but in this case I'm quite sure the RIAA would attempt a motion for summary dismissal of said suit (as having been made in bad faith) if they can find any evidence of what might possibly be called 'piracy'.

        IANAL, of course, but it seems as though that'd be the first thing they'd look for.

      • If that were applicable, then Wal-Mart could accuse me of being a shoplifter and sieze all my assets and I'd be liable for all the items that I don't have reciepts for that they stock.

        I wouldn't suggest that if I were you.

        (Sidenote: Wal-Mart wouldn't be that thick-skulled, given that they're noted for saving every shred of information about their customers, including transaction records (cash or otherwise), and video surveillance. If you've stolen from them, they already know about it, and have hard evide

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by glindsey (73730)

        I disagree. If he was found having 10000+ files on his hard drive, then he would be screwed. A single file with no documentation would not be a big deal.

        If that were applicable, then Wal-Mart could accuse me of being a shoplifter and sieze all my assets and I'd be liable for all the items that I don't have reciepts for that they stock.
        If Wal-Mart had the kind of lobbyists and owned as many congresspeople as the RIAA does, you would be liable.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mlwmohawk (801821)
        I disagree. If he was found having 10000+ files on his hard drive, then he would be screwed.

        An important point:

        You do not need to prove ownership of the files. It is not illegal or wrong to have the copies, it is illegal to distribute copyrighted material.

        They have to prove you distributed the works. There is already precedent that RIAA's argument of "merely making available" is not sufficient.

    • Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by webmaster404 (1148909) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:12PM (#22159726)
      The thing though is, when you stand up to bullies (like the *AA) generally unless they have a very very solid case, they will back down. Unless they can link his specific IP to his computer that he specifically downloaded files he can use several excuses, not to mention he can probably get the EFF on his side who have very good lawyers to stop this kind of thing. And even if he does lose, he can manage to set some precedent that will allow the EFF to attack the RIAA on a technicality.

      • Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts (Score:5, Informative)

        by Free_Meson (706323) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:31PM (#22159944)

        Unless they can link his specific IP to his computer that he specifically downloaded files he can use several excuses, not to mention he can probably get the EFF on his side who have very good lawyers to stop this kind of thing.
        MIT has a class-A subnet (18.*.*.*) and used to give each student their own static IP address. If they still do that, it may be the easiest place for the *AA's to gather evidence. MIT may not "resist" as other campuses have for the reason that every student using P2P on their network is easily identifiable to the outside world.
        • If that is true... he is doomed. However my guess is the RIAA still can't produce enough evidence save say a BT tracker site so if he gets the EFF he still might win.
          • You'd still have to prove that his computer was using that address at a specific time, and that it cannot be reasonably argued that someone else couldn't have used that address for a time. Maybe if they logged the MAC address at the first router (although MAC addresses can be easily changed, too).

          • If that is true... he is doomed. However my guess is the RIAA still can't produce enough evidence save say a BT tracker site so if he gets the EFF he still might win.
            Bittorrent tells you the IP addresses of your peers. I don't know what other information is available, but I would assume that it is possible to tell whether any particular member of a torrent is uploading. If he was uploading, he's boned.
            • But who is to say that the RIAA has solid evidence? They aren't used to people fighting back effectively, if they can only prove that he went to a specific site, there is lack of evidence. The RIAA has never made very solid cases and if he wins this he could inspire others to do the same.

        • Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Nimrodel (637279) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @06:00PM (#22160346)
          MIT doesn't automatically give everyone static IPs anymore, although you can get several of them if you want. What happens now is that the first time you try to use your computer to log onto the internet at MIT, you have to first register your mac address. You can't access the internet unless your mac address has been registered. Once you've done that, whenever you connect you're given a random IP via dhcp. So, 'technically' they can attach a name to IP because you've registered your mac address, but it's entirely possible to spoof that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by redcaboodle (622288)

        Good luck in choosing your bullies, then.

        Real world bullies usually have good connections and the (green-backed, with the RIAA) stamina to draw you out over a long time. Bullies are mostly supported by authority because they keep people in line and people who stand up to things are not welcome.

        You are much more likely to be punished for hitting the bully back then the bully is for hitting you.

        I suppose MIT will just get rid of the student in question and the RIAA will starve him out unless his daddy is a

    • I don't know much about this specific case, but what is he claiming as his defense? It's not the first time that the RIAA has targeted the wrong person.
    • I wasn't aware of a legal requirement for showing where you bought... well, just about anything short of firearms.


      ...and doughnuts!

      "I bought a doughnut and they gave me a receipt for the doughtnut... I don't need a receipt for the doughnut. I give you money and you give me the doughnut, end of transaction. We don't need to bring ink and paper into this. I can't imagine a scenario that I would have to prove that I bought a doughnut. To some skeptical friend, 'Don't even act like I didn't get that doughnut, I've got the documentation right here... It's in my file at home. ...Under "D".'"

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by realthing02 (1084767)
      So you have all the receipts for every CD record or tape you've ever purchased? Besides, you can't send the letter and then look for evidence. Usually they need to know before one brings it to litigation. Is this kid guilty? probably, although there weren't many details in the article. But you can't just send letters out to students without a good amount of evidence, and it seems that is what is being contested- that he is somehow randomly being sent a letter (lucky fish).

      Unlike most slashdotters (i presume
    • They WANT you to think that... (standard IANAL disclaimer)

      First you have to ask... how exactly do they know that the file was a copyright infringement? Did they listen to it? Do they even represent the artist that he is supposedly committing such an atrocity? And in that wing of logic, not knowing what the file contained, couldn't it be an 'intent to commit copyright infringement' by simply listening to the file and "verifying" it? After all, what if the file was called "Tool - Loud Noises.mp3" and it is his attempt to make music from his power tools... not from Tool the band. What gives them the right to download and listen to the file and not me? And how else would you positively know that copyright infringement is taking place?

      That aside, you can't reasonably expect that I (or anyone) is going to have a receipt for their CD of Michael Jackson - Thriller that they bought in 1991. With that, nothing keeps someone from going to the local flea market and picking up an old used copy (providing they didn't have the original CD, whatever the reason).

      The whole setup is a scam. People HAVE to be getting paid off for this to keep going forward the way it is... especially when the RIAA legal opposition grows by the day.

      • What gives them the right to download and listen to the file and not me? And how else would you positively know that copyright infringement is taking place?
        A discovery order.

      • "Tool - Loud Noises.mp3" and it is his attempt to make music from his power tools...
        That sounds cool do you know a torrent or P2P server where I can get this mp3?

      • After all, what if the file was called "Tool - Loud Noises.mp3" and it is his attempt to make music from his power tools... not from Tool the band.
        Always fun stuff! I'm particularly fond of my nailgun. Few things shout "industrial metal" like a depressurizing nailgun going along to the beat. That said, I was disappointed that my chainsaw just sounds like a dirt bike later when listening to the recordings. It's a pretty big chainsaw even. :\
    • Maybe they can ask John's siblings Tae Kwon, Dosie, and Cookie?

      [joke stolen from the show Psych, with no shame]

      • Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts (Score:4, Informative)

        by KublaiKhan (522918) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:19PM (#22159822) Homepage Journal
        The RIAA predates the internet (and, indeed, easy access to recording equipment by the masses). As such, even if nobody 'stole' music and suchlike, the RIAA would still exist.

        You may have forgotten, but originally the RIAA was an advocacy group for the promotion of recording artists and labels, created (as I recall) almost as a sort of union, in order to have more negotiation clout when dealing with distributors and media outlets.

        However, this core mission has been long since lost since they took up this ill-conceived crusade against the "dangers of piracy"--as such, the public opinion (which does matter, given that said opinion can influence legislation, amongst other things) has, largely, turned against them, reducing them to a simple dichotomy of "Us Against The Pirates!" The RIAA has, by its own actions, essentially rendered itself next to useless.

        • Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts (Score:5, Informative)

          by b.emile (1222958) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:49PM (#22160148) Homepage
          The RIAA was originally created to make sure everyone's vinyl would play correctly. It's called the RIAA curve [wikipedia.org], created to keep RCA from equalizing differently than Columbia, so your records would sound good. It also oversaw later electronic recording formats. It was only later that it became a sort of union, and then, even later, a sort of police organization, as you stated.

        • Re:He'd best make sure he saved his receipts (Score:5, Interesting)

          by croddy (659025) * on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:54PM (#22160240)
          Your history is not quite right. You may be thinking of the AFM. The RIAA -- if you can believe it -- was originally formed as an oversight body for standardized equalization curves for record mastering. Prior to the RIAA curve, different labels used different EQ curves, which were of course most compatible only with record players made by those companies or their affiliates. The RIAA actually grew out of a successful attempt to make music recordings portable from one manufacturer's players to another!! It is depressing and backwards that their recent history has been one of fighting that same principle of portability with every tool at their disposal.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dragonslicer (991472)

        Incorrect. RIAA needs to prove he's guilty, he doesn't have to prove he's innocent.
        Incorrect. The company bringing the case to court (remember, the RIAA doesn't sue people, the recording companies do) has to show that it's more likely than not that he did what the company claims he did, and he has to show that it's more likely than not that he didn't do what the company claims he did. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies to criminal cases.

    • Re:is this guy totally innocent? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Spacepup (695354) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:17PM (#22159814)

      This is like a burglar complaining that the cops investigated a burglary and traced the goods to his house.
      Actually it's more like the neighborhood association looking through your window at your stereo and cd collection and deciding there is no way you could have bought so you must be guilty of theft.

        • Re:is this guy totally innocent? (Score:5, Funny)

          by kaizokuace (1082079) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @10:19PM (#22162846)
          Its like this: The RIAA is a company that sells spinner hubcaps which are totally gay. They drive by your house and see that you have rims with spinners so they decide you robbed them, even though your spinners are cold hard ali 20's probably with LEDs on them too. So they pull out their mac-10's and drop like 5 magazines on your car, cuz they are gangstas literally.

    • Wrong wrong wrong wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Weaselmancer (533834) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:21PM (#22159854)

      The RIAA had his IP address, and traced him. This is like a burglar complaining that the cops investigated a burglary and traced the goods to his house.

      This is an example of the RIAA and their tactics, and of what they hope to achieve.

      They have convinced this guy that they are the cops. They are NOT.

      Please everyone - do your best to not further their agenda by buying into their spin. They are not the cops. People who infringe on copyright are not pirates. Committing copyright violation is not theft.

      • Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong (Score:5, Informative)

        by s20451 (410424) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:33PM (#22159962) Journal
        Committing copyright violation is not theft.

        But it is illegal.
        • So is jaywalking [wikipedia.org], however in the grand scheme of things is a minor offense that people engage in every day that rarely results in any legal repercussions.

          So, your point is.. what, exactly?

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by jedidiah (1196)
              Sure. Jaywalking can actually HURT someone.

              Copyright infringement just gives control freaks anxiety attacks.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Fieryphoenix (1161565)
          Unlawful, actually. Not illegal.

        • Re:Wrong wrong wrong wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Weaselmancer (533834) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:48PM (#22160126)

          Not the argument I'm making.

          My point is that theft and copyright violation are not the same thing, as the RIAA would have you believe. Why would the RIAA push this particular viewpoint? Because it's easy to despise a thief, that's why. But legally, a copyright violator is something different. So they're trying to spin it so that lawmakers and juries will look at copyright violators and SEE thieves. It helps their agenda to do this.

          But they're not the same thing or we wouldn't need a law about copyright violation on the books, seeing as how we already have one there for theft.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Weaselmancer (533834)

              Turn it around again.

              If we could convince the entire world to call all people who commit copyright violation "Fluffy Marshmallow Bunny Liberator of Ideas", wouldn't you think that a senator would have a hard time making a draconian law against that?

              Words mean things. The words you choose matter. Ask anyone in advertising if I'm right.

        • Illegal is what the People decide it is. The People may change their mind. It's happened before. -Hope

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.