RIAA Apologizes for Incorrect Infringement Notice 525
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"."
MediaForce (Score:5, Interesting)
For shame....
Why pay attention when your extorting? (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
What's in a name? (Score:2, Interesting)
Fact - I'm in the Radio business
Fact - I have lots of Mp3's named rockxx.mp3 on my computers (where xx is a number)
I can't imagine the drool that would be produced by the RIAA if they were to ever come across my hard drive. I'm sure they would think "Pay-Dirt!!" When in actuality it's just another voice in the crowded radio dial.
I'll have to warn my good buddy John L. Zeppelin to be on the lookout for the RIAA piranha. (His real name too!)
"Honest mistake" ?!?!?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
database of RIAA ips? (Score:5, Interesting)
yea, easy to make false allegations first (Score:4, Interesting)
Hosting Fake Files (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
cuckoo's eggs (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The current state of things... (Score:4, Interesting)
Even my Residential Advisor got nailed for a movie. People get their ports shut off and get called in by the dozens. My friend who works in the Residential Network offices, in addition to telling us what they're cracking down on, told me that they get a good deal of letters from the MPAA and the RIAA, demanding specific students knock it off: under the DMCA, our school acts as an ISP, and can be held accountable. It hasn't really deterred anyone, and there haven't been any criminal charges, but students get nailed all the time.
Except those who still know how to lie low and run Hotline servers.
Read this: (Score:2, Interesting)
RIAA == Penn State Board Member (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A new advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why pay attention when your extorting? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Not the RIAA, but similar situation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The current state of things... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
"temp employee": sign of economic injustice (Score:2, Interesting)
I can understand this for a startup company, as long as the company quickly moves to start covering the costs of its labor. But in the case of a wealthy organization, this means that the wealthy organization just *chooses* not to give economic justice. More for me, nothing for you.
I have been seeing this more and more, and it is part of what ails America. It comes from the move to give more to the investors, and comes from the blinds that are provided by corporate coverage, in which the investors can't see the plight of their workers.
But let me point out the results of economic injustice: if there is economic injustice, then the victim's investments remain unpaid, and in that case, it does not pay for the victim to invest!
In the case of inventors who can't afford to patent and defend their inventions, because the patent system only benefits wealthy corporations, the proper response is to not devote effort to inventing.
In the case where your compensation is not based upon justice, it does not pay to invest in an education that will make you a more valuable employee.
In the case where businesses are taxed to death, so that other businesses can recieve lucrative government contracts, it does not pay to start a business and help the economy: it pays to work your own garden instead.
In the case where individuals are taxed to death, to pay for more tax collectors, the farmer's strategy doesn't pay -- only the highway robber's strategy pays. If you want to see what this is like, look at Congo/Zaire.
If you think it is getting bad, and the problem is the government, then tell the government. If you don't think they'll listen, then it's better to leave, and find a better place.
Here's How [escapeartist.com].
If you think it is getting bad, and the problem is the people (yeah, they're all good people, they just, well, you can depend on them to do really evil things), then it's doubly important to find a better group of people.
Here's a hint. [800padutch.com]
If worst comes to worst, duck, cover the ones you love as well as possible, stay [state.gov] out [time.com] of the way [vietnampix.com] of wars [aol.com] as much as possible, and try to live with as much justice and charity as possible. [rawa.org]
But the bible is absolutely right: when we choose to withhold a man's wages [irs.gov], we commit violence. When we choose economic theft as a regular diet, we commit murder. [worldbank.org] And we recreate our world to become a horror. Our spiritual failings definitely bring physical problems and death.
Just my two cents. That's all.
Re:Another anti-RIAA tactic? (Score:1, Interesting)
Perjury? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:So... (Score:1, Interesting)
There is certainly a fuzzy area as to whether the public FTP site "consents" to entry and search in the same way a suspect can consent to letting authorites search his home or whatever.
However, if that consent has not been granted, I would think it could be a very swift and definite supreme court decision that information gleaned by a global search, without consent of the owner of said system, would not be permissable evidence for legal action.
As an analogy, if the police have a warrant to search through business papers at your residence, and they find a stash of herion in the cabinet under the sink, they cannot try you for possession -- there is no reason to believe you would keep business papers under the sink, so the authorities were making an illegal search when they found the evidence.
IANAL, but I assume hiring a private detective to break and enter to discover evidence also renders said evidence unpermissable. Having someone who is not working as an authority of the law (ie, RIAA) making the illegal search does not render the evidence permissable.
If the FTP banner contains text indicating that the site is to be used for only certain purposes and that using the site indicates agreement to the terms, wouldnt this be illegal search and seizure?
Re:Why pay attention when your extorting? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Penn should have pushed its advantages (Score:3, Interesting)
-Mike-
Re:Consider it slammed =) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why pay attention when your extorting? (Score:2, Interesting)
How is uploading illegal? Just because I put my mp3s, that I legaly own, in an un-linked directory on my web server does not mean that I want anyone else to download them. They are there for my personal use so that I can listen to my music from anywhere. It is not my responsibility to make sure no one steals copies of them.
Re:a little off-topic joke (Score:3, Interesting)
*Many people have dogs who do not have families and there are many gay men who get married.
This information brought to you by a bored pedant
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think there is a correct assumption that what is public is public - otherwise the whole internet breaks down. However,
I wonder if a "robots.txt" file is a "technological measure to effectively control access to a copyrighted work", and a RIAA spider that spiders a server with such a file violates the DMCA.
Re:Why pay attention when your extorting? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Maybe we could turn it into a sport - corporation-baiting, here we come!
Re:MediaForce (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed, and look how far out of their way they go to avoid mentioning who laid it there. That story, and four others of only ten on that page, are broken links.
Automated Sticky Tarpit - RIConfuseBot (Score:3, Interesting)
It would grab the album chart from FreeDB and then make a pseudo random listing of 20 or so artists. Clicking on an artist's name would reveal the names of the albums, and clicking on the album name would reveal links to song downloads as MP3s.
Each page would have a 10 second delay on loading, and each MP3 download (which would be white noise) would be downloaed at about 10 bits per second. The idea would be to tie-up as many threads on thhe RIAA servers for as long as possible.
Next, the system would run on a wildcarded domain name so that it would look to the RIAAbot as if it were a large number of sites. Each of these sites would link to each other creating a vast low bandwidth tarpit.
How about that then?
Re:Why pay attention when your extorting? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The RIAA aint the only one making dumb mistakes.. (Score:2, Interesting)
It might be fun to poison thier bots by placing millions of phony mp3 files on ftp and http sites...give the RIAA a taste of thier own medicine.
Hmmm.. (Score:2, Interesting)
By the way this is phrased I'm inclined to think that they are hinting that the RIAA is a law enforcement agency? I've seen terms like FBI and other law enforcement entities. Maybe it's just my early morning thinking and interpreting before caffeine.
If they are and since my tax dollars are already going to them in blank cd sales, why can't they be federally regulated and controlled instead of controlling? Maybe I'm just crazy and I realize I may have taken this out of context, but I dunno in my limited joe-average-american point of view. It did make me stop and think.
Re:Perjury != lying, == knowingly lying (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the point of those lines: you aren't supposed to send out harassment letters unless you are sure that you are right, to prevent things like this.
Re:Speakeasy/RIAA incident (Score:2, Interesting)
Patrick,
I'm puzzled by the following accusatory statement you made:
"If the current complaint does not have any scan reults, this would mean that at one point it did (otherwise they would not have sent out an email in the first place) and they are making a formal notification about it."
To what exactly are you referring? I have never received any other such scan results from the RIAA or Speakeasy. I can assure you that at no point has "my circuit" contained any pirated materials of any sort. And I am absolutely positive that the RIAA has no information to prove otherwise.
I'm an engineer and have done many audits of varying types for various clients. And if I were to write the code for the audit so that it would not take into account as many false positive scenarios as possible (or at least the very basic) and then present the results as authoritative, I would probably get fired. I bet if I were to make a file that contained null data and call it "nirvana-smellsliketeenspirit.mp3" (or anything of a similar nature), it would should up on their scan results as a positive hit. This is ridiculous!
I would expect Speakeasy to be more proactive on the customer's behalf and demand that such occurrences as this do not continue. It looks very poor on Speakeasy when it simply forwards something like this on without at least performing a level of due diligence to ensure the accusation is at least founded from some level of accurate data.
Could you please provide me with the source ip or network that these scans are being performed from?
Annoyed and violated,
Samuel
Subject
RE: Speakeasy Network Alert
Suggested Answer
At 05/08/2003 02:11 PM we wrote -
Greetings-
Please understand that Speakeasy Network is legally obligated to pass these complaints of possible copyright infringement about your circuit onto you- regardless of the scan result. This serves to at least notify you that the complaining party is actively searching for copyright infringement. If the current complaint does not have any scan reults, this would mean that at one point it did (otherwise they would not have sent out an email in the first place) and they are making a formal notification about it.
We also notify you in order for you to be aware that these scans do happen frequently and that you, as a customer, are responsible for any alleged or proven abuse that is associated with your circuit. If you are aware that these scans are currently focusing on your circuit, you will be able to prevent future complaints.
Hope this explains things a little better for you,
Patrick McDonald
Network Security and Abuse
Speakeasy.net
abuse@speakeasy.net
Question
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. There are absolutely no copyrighted materials on this server. It is an ftp site containing files for the Amiga personal computer. It has a form of music and art (known as demos) produced by individuals from all over the globe. None of these individuals (or groups of individuals) produced any of this material under any sort of commercial label. In fact, all files on the server were placed there by said individuals and groups.
Further, the email you received from RIAA appears to be automatically generated and does not check for false positives, evident by the following statement in their email:
"This site, which we accessed on 7 May 2003 14:07:22 EDT (GMT -0400), offers approximately 0 sound files for download."
Are there any further actions or explanation required on my behalf beyond this email?
FYI, I will be forwarding this email thread on to the online news source, slashdot.
-Samuel
-----Original Message-----
From: abuse@speakeasy.net [mailto:a
Re:Speakeasy/RIAA incident (Score:3, Interesting)
RIAA could cause harm (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:1, Interesting)
Sorry about the hyperbole, but you get the idea.
Slashdot the RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why pay attention when your extorting? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is an ugly meme that seems to be spreading among people who don't stop to think or who don't understand the nature of copyright. For example my web hosting service (and many others, I'm sure) has the following clause in their AUP:
Users may not... Use an account to host and/or distribute copyrighted software or files.
If I were to take this clause literally, I could never put anything on my website other than a blank page since anything I create would be copyrighted by me. Also I wouldn't be able to help my nephew by putting up mp3s of his band since their are also copyrighted, even though he wants me to post them.
Of course this could this be all corrected simply by adding the words "without the permission of the copyright holder" to the end of the clause. But obviously to them only entities that can hold copyrights are big music, movie and software companies.