Anonymous User Challenges RIAA Subpoena 411
Arclightfire writes "First there was the setback of a New England judge throwing out an attempt to uncover the names of students at MIT accused of piracy and now CNet is reporting that a 'Jane Doe' is arguing that the subpoena violates her right to due process." There's also a Reuters story.
Money Money Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Kazza's media player (Score:3, Insightful)
Who says? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The courts have already ruled that you're not anonymous when you're publicly distributing music online," said Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president at the RIAA. "Her lawyers are trying to obtain a free pass to download or upload music online illegally. Their arguments have already been addressed by federal court and been rejected."
The obvious problem with this is: who says she's "publicly distributing music online"? A court of law? A judge? No, just the RIAA. Sure, it may later be shown that she was, in fact, doing what they claim. They may have enough evidence against her to convince a judge to issue a warrant or a subpoena. Or, the RIAA may have made a mistake again. We have legal procedures in place to prevent abuse of the system, and these procedures are not being followed. In the past, the RIAA hasn't been exactly careful [slashdot.org] when determining who is or is not distributing copyrighted MP3s.
Even scarier:
"We informed the recording industry that one of our customers intended to challenge and asked the RIAA to deal with the lawyers directly.
Instead, according to Deutsch, the RIAA went to court recently and filed a motion to compel Verizon to provide the name.
Surprisingly (for those of us who have long considered them to be an evil company), Verizon is clearly doing all the right things here. They're only doing what they've already been forced by a court to do [slashdot.org].
I wish Jane Doe the best of luck. She'll need it. Oh, and by the way, the first article mentions the EFF is working on fighting this too; they're always accepting donations.
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:5, Insightful)
great idea (Score:1, Insightful)
different issues (Score:1, Insightful)
There are a number of different issues in the spotlight regarding this problem. It seems that the RIAA's comment in the CNet story is trying to make copyright violations the issue... quote: "Her lawyers are trying to obtain a free pass to download or upload music online illegally"..
But in fact, this case is about the music industry prying into your personal life and invading your privacy. If you ask me, the RIAA is violating constitutional amendments that made this country what it is..
Let's just keep the different cases in perspective and uphold all laws instead of destroying others in the process...
Right..... (Score:4, Insightful)
One should read their ISP's Terms of Service. If it says "we will assist law enforcement authorities and copyright holders" (maybe not in so many words) then yer screwed. And even if it does not say that, then your complaint is with the ISP and not the RIAA. Afterall, as far as they are concerned, you're violating their copyrights (or the copyrights of their members; no matter how much you agree with them or not).
So these days, instead of people becoming educated and reading contracts they get into, they get mommy and daddy to hire a lawyer to sue for them.
Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume you mean this 'setback':
But Judge Joseph L Tauro said because the subpoenas were issued in Washington, DC they cannot be served in Massachusetts.
This really isn't a 'setback' at all. It was simple a procedural error. Those subpoenas will be filed again but this time in Massachusetts. Then they will be served.
Then there's this from the article:
"This is more invasive than someone having secret access to the library books you check out or the videos you rent,"
LMAO! So in other words, not very invasive at all. Besides, last time I looked checking books out of the library and renting videos was legal. Maybe because both are paid for! (Libraries operate on taxes in case you didn't know. That's what makes it a Public Library.)
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:5, Insightful)
Why'd she have Kazaa installed? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:4, Insightful)
it's not illeagal to simply use kazaa now is it? it's ridiculous how riaa acts as a police(and court) on what you're allowed to do. it's not riaa's job, if they see something wrong going on shouldn't they report it to a 3rd party(mainly, the police) that is supposed to punish law breakers? or should i as a normal man be responsible for trying to catch pickpockets and have the power and ability to sentence them on the spot too? if so what use there of a court system that's meant to provide fair hearing and sentences.
-
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't Joe Blow downloading songs and thinking that he has to use Kazaa to listen to them.
Don't Share, Don't Buy (Score:2, Insightful)
Just as we keep telling them, their business model is outdated .... we need to understand that P2P download model is outdated. First the napster went, now P2P is gone. Just wait for the next generation of technology.
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:4, Insightful)
I say more power to this anonymous "Jane Doe." She'll most likely win.
Re:Money Money Money (Score:3, Insightful)
<gasp> Heaven forbid that RIAA actually encourage the "industry" to focus on its product & distribution system! What they want is FREE MONEY by forcing folks to pay for inferior product that can only be obtained online through "illegal" means.
Has anyone ever checked the bitrate of most tunes on P2P systems? Sucky almost-FM-Quality with that "loss of midrange" inherent to mp3s. So is RIAA now going to have subpoenas packaged with FM receivers & cassette decks?
I applaud "Jane Doe" for finally pushing the resistance as a due process issue, which is what it is. However, "due process" is immaterial as long as John Ashcroft is Attorney General. And the only way to change that, /.ers is to vote accordingly in November 2004. If you get to vote in November 2004...
Re:Subpoena *is* due process (Score:2, Insightful)
It does not matter (Score:5, Insightful)
As a couple of others have pointed out, it does not matter if she is guilty or not. She could be the bloody Boston Strangler (and I am sure Jack Valenti would liken her to that) for all anybody should care. Rights are something that everybody has, and they have to be protected.
She is innocent until proven guilty (remember that phrase?). In other words, she is innocent until convicted in another trial with another jury completely unrelated to this.
The RIAA and the record industry as a whole are on trial here, not Jane Doe.
She should have your blessing, too, because she is fighting for your freedom from tyranny.
Re:wow, it's about time (Score:2, Insightful)
They should however start turning the screws when they see a team of lawyers using a flood of lawsuits (or threats thereof) as a form of revenue, and not to resolve legitimate grievances.
The legal system wasnt put in place for anyone to profit from.
I don't buy it. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you download an mp3, get it of a cd, you will open it and play it with MS installed apps.
So how exactly would a complete and utter noob get to install kazaa to play an Mp3? I know far more people that are convinved that Windows Media Player is the only way to play their music, and who think that since it has windows in front of it Linux can't play Mp3s.
Oh and yes they are of course right. Kernels are well known for not playing music :)
Re:Subpoena *is* due process (Score:3, Insightful)
So if I use the right legal form, I can issue a subpoena? That's pretty much the state of the ones RIAA issues.
Wake up, folks! RIAA is just another "private citizen." They are not the government, they are not law enforcement, they are just like you or me. They just want you to think that they are law enforcement & they do that by threatening schools & other organizations with lawsuits.
And that's the due process question here, I think.
Re:Right..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Subpoena *is* due process (Score:4, Insightful)
The due process was already violated by identifying the individual. By due process, that would require a warrent.
Until there is PROOF that she has ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Money Money Money (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Subpoena *is* due process (Score:4, Insightful)
Zero Effect (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Subpoena *is* due process (Score:4, Insightful)
No, any piece of paper a JUDGE calls a subpeona is valid. The RIAA doesn't have the power to issue subpeonas; they bring probable cause to the judge, and he/she issues them. You can argue whether or not there's enough probable cause here, but to attack the subpeona system itself is plain silly. As a previous poster pointed out, a subpeona IS due process. You're not automatically convitcted. You are called to appear in a court of law to defend the claims against you. Supeona does not neccessarily equal injustice here.
Re:Money Money Money (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus, IANAL, but I believe that if they don't try to protect their copyrights then they lose them, which of course is the complete opposite of what they want.
The RIAA has to pursue those who illegal copy music. It's not very complicated. Are they driving people to pirate music by driving up CD prices? Almost certainly. Would reducing prices now reduce file trading? Perhaps. There will always be a market for legitimately purchased music.
But don't expect them not to pursue file-traders. They have to, and why wouldn't they? Sadly, however they seem to be inclined to taking away people's life savings during a so-called settlement, and of course, these people are stigmatized for life as criminals.
Personally, I think file-sharing should be punishable by a fine, with no criminal record involved. Like a parking ticket.
My opinion anyway.
Re:Try number one (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, is that all? I just have to win against a multinational, multibillion dollar organization disputing a subpoena process that has already been established through precedent? Gee, and I thought it was going to be hard.
Re:Is Matt Oppenheim a lawyer? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but that hasn't stopped hordes of
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only that, what if someone is using a file-sharing system to download the music, listen once, then delete the file? That is a legit use, just like me handing a tape to my friend to listen to for a week is a legit "fair use" doctrine.
You are retaining a copy of the music on your computer and now giving it to someone else.
Unless Kazaa deleted your file after they downloaded it, it would be the same.
Ignorance of a Crime != Ignorance of the Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of the activity almost always is.[1] It goes to intent, it goes to motive, it goes to opportunity. If someone buries a body on your property without your knowledge, you are generally not tried for collusion with the murderer. If you are, and you can demonstrate that you didn't know it was happening, you are most certainly acquitted.
If many people are using Kazaa because they believe they need it to play back their own, legally ripped mp3s, then the RIAA doesn't have much of a case. Copyright violations have to be willful and intentional to receive most of the punitive rewards, and with computers things are even murkier, as trojan horse programs (which Kazaa arguably is, in this context), worms, and viruses often hijack people's computers to do things they have absolutely no idea are being done.
Or are we going to arrest everyone whose computer has been comprimised by SoBig.F or whatever it's latest iteration is, for DOSing Microsloth's web services? After all, "ignorance is no excuse..."
[1]Willful, or negligent, ignorance of course is an exception. Having a good idea someone is doing something neferious, but saying "I don't want to know!" isn't enough to get one off. However, true lack of knowledge that something bad is going on, even on one's own property, is in most cases a valid excuse. However, a computer user not understanding what a trojan or trojan-esque program is doing on their computer hardly qualifies
And I don't see even this government stooping to licensing computer use anytime soon.
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't Joe Blow downloading songs and thinking that he has to use Kazaa to listen to them.
"This person knows how to drive a car. She's not using her Corvett to drive down the highway."
Did you even think to semantically parse the statement you just made?
Of course she knows how to rip her own CDs. A friend probably showed her this nifty program to rip her CDs onto her hard drive (for convinience
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, so you have a linux server on the net, you are a novice, I hack your server I use it to do bad things, it gets traced back to you, not to me, you get charged. You say " but I diden't know, I must have been hacked, it wasen't me... etc. etc. " the fact that you were "ignorant" of how to properly secure your machine should not make you responsible for the actions of another who hacked your machine. a license to use a computer would be nice but it dosen't exist as of now so this is all pretty much a grey area, I don't think that ancient sayings like "ignorance is no defence" are as clear cut in cyberspace.
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah.. nothing good... just the constitution.. which doesn't mean shit lately (since we're consumers now, not citizens)
Responding to the point about the lame excuse, a lot of people REALLY are that dumb. I do, however, feel that this woman really wasn't.
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:2, Insightful)
What's worse, if the US government doesn't recognize these process change requests and go with the flow, we'll get clobbered in the greater world economy and power structure as the new processes begin to produce products and services ten times better than the old way of doing things.
The Japanese auto-industry did it to the American auto-industry.
Let's face it, Microsoft changed the process of computing -> Bill Gates put a computer on every person's desk at home and at work. (Well, many people, you understand what I mean) And Big Blue nearly died a horrible death not recognizing the changes Microsoft was making for the world. Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot and once again, the small guys "get it", and the big ones don't.
So Kazaa is changing how we find musicians and the songs they write. The RIAA had better figure it out quick or they too will be dying a horrible death.
Is the DMCA constitutional (due process?) (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, AFAIK lower courts seldom rule a law unconstitutional without precedent. This one will have to be carried to the US Supreme Court, a long haul. I wish her luck. I'm glad to see the EFF there.
Re:Sigh. (Score:3, Insightful)
The law must be different where you live. In the United States, there is a federal law [privacilla.org] which prevents the owner/operator of a video rental establishment from disclosing what was rented or purchased.
But that law applies ONLY to video rentals and such.
Maybe the law is different where you live about this too, but in the US, it's not illegal to download a few songs off of Kazaa. And since it's not illegal, why should I have to worry about the RIAA (or anyone, for that matter) breathing down my neck?
To be sure, it's illegal (generally speaking) to download (or offer for download) copyrighted songs on Kazaa, and the RIAA is within their rights to pursue those who do. But to allow the RIAA to inhibit the downloading of some Jane Doe before proving that Ms. Doe was offering/downloading copyrighted songs is to circumvent due process.
Strangly, that's what this story is all about. Imaging that.
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:5, Insightful)
The question that I didn't see answered, which is going to be very material to this case, was: what was she downloading? If it was music from independant artists or freeware, then she has done nothing wrong. Now I admit, most likely, she was downloading copyrighted music, and therefore in trouble, but if she claims she didn't, and can explain away her sharing as the legal kind, then the onus shoud be on the RIAA to prove otherwise, if they can't, and the judge isn't just another coporate worshiper, then she may just get away with this and set a very nice precident, something along the lines of, you actually have to file a suit and ask the judge to let you subpeona those records before getting them.
Re:this isn't going to do anything for the communi (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I have just given up, but I think at this point we mihgt as well go all the way and rename the USA the UFSC (United Feudalistic States of the Corporations).
Re:Ignorance of a Crime != Ignorance of the Law (Score:3, Insightful)
In a criminal case, ignorance of the activity is a defense. In a civil case (which, afaik, all of these are), that may or may not be the case.
In A Way, I Hope They Win (Score:4, Insightful)
I am a strong believer in 'innocent until proven guilty', but I also see the humor in the irony of the RIAA winning.
Just imagine that it was impossible to find any music by any RIAA members online. People would go to the p2p networks, and only find music of artists that encouraged their files to be traded. Some of them wouldn't have the polish of commercial artists, but there would be enough "good" music for people to be happy. The end result would be diminishing interest in the RIAA bands.
Be careful what you wish for...
( As a footnote, if you do want to share music online, check out the bands and artists that allow their work to be redistributed freely. Listen to their music, and, if you like them, put them into your 'share' folder of your p2p app, with the information in the id3 tags [or whatever ogg uses], and a text file in the same folder explaining the copywrite information and links to the band's website. Of course, once you end up sharing enough megs of files this way, you'll probably get sued by the RIAA, so make sure you have a good lawyer and can countersue for costs. )
Are you Sure? Contributory vs. Copyright Violation (Score:5, Insightful)
Good God that's appalling. You are correct
Or is this limited to the copyright violator? If so, my point stands. It is not the unwitting user who has accidentally, and unknowingly, made a file accessible to others to download who has violated copyright law, it is the person actually doing the dowloading.
So, unless contributing to another's act of copyright violation doesn't require knowledge (which means the scenerio I outlined above is possible, in which case we should all be polishing our revolutionary guns [toung in cheeck, folk, toung in cheek. Holster those handcuffs, Mr. Spook.]), then the unwitting Kazaa user whose files someone else is copying is still off the hook.
Otherwise, quite frankly, any use of any computer within the boarders of the United States carries with it an unacceptable level of liability, and we should all either relocate to a saner jurisdiction or go back to using abicusses.
Re:If you really want to take down the RIAA (Score:1, Insightful)
This won't work in most places where a random percentage of people are polled to see their preferences. If you can get an Arbitron form or one of the other surveys and turn them in it's a better idea. Each random person maybe accounts for a few hundred to few thousand actual listeners.
Also, the idea is not just to *not* buy RIAA artists, but use some of that money to go to non-RIAA artists. Even a small percentage of that money will be huge to the smaller companies. The RIAA will no doubt claim that the total revenues are going down, but if the evidence shows that artists who embrace P2P and novel distribution methods are prospering, their case will be ineffectual.
It's sickening how they want to legislate continued revenue because their business model is outdated.
It Should Have no Bearing on Her Due Process (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, she is entitled to due process whether or not she is innocent or guilty.
The fact that she is very plausably innocent (though quite possibly not) should serve to underscore this point to the unwashed masses whose kneejerk response is to scream for the pirate's head on a platter hours before the court papers are even filed, but it should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her contention that subpeanas being issued without court order identifying individuals for acts of potential barratory by a cartel are inappropraite and probably unconstitutional.
Copyright law is appalling in that one can be put into prison for 5 years for doing something utterly unwittingly and unknowingly. If in fact one can go to prison for utterly unwittingly and unknowingly contributing to someone elses violation of the law (who themselves may be doing so utterly unwittingly and unknowingly), then we really are living in a police state the awful powers of which we are just now waking up to.
It has been rather obvious to anyone in the digital world that copyright is the tool for oppression and censorship of those in the developed world (in the latter 20th century and 21st centuries, at least), but to think that people can be imprisoned for events to which they are peripherally bound without their knowledge is truly unthinkable. I'm not talking about ignorance of the law, which has never been an excuse, but ignorance that an action has even been committed (by oneself, or someone one has a connection to that makes them an unwitting contributor).
Certainly if this woman didn't know Kazaa was sharing her files with others on the internet, she not only wasn't aware of the copying that was going on, she wasn't even aware that she was contributing to the potential act.
Any system that would hold someone in such circumstances guilty of anything or hold them accountable for even one penny of damages, much less imprison them, is a system that needs to be scrapped immediately and, if necessary, forcefully. (to my knowledge, however, contributory copyright infringement does require knowledge of the fact, or at least "any sensible person should have known", but IANAL and I could be wrong. If I am, it is past time to emigrate or take up arms, and the former is a much higher percentage game than the latter, so I'm outta here)
Re:Bogus (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong, you have no idea if that it true. She could have been following directions from a friend or someplace online for installation of Kazaa. 'Click OK. Click and add a username. Click to uncheck this box. Click to check this box...'. Only now she finds out she is being sued. She goes back and says "well this is what I did when I installed the software..." Did she try and prevent others from getting her files? Yes. Did she know she was doing it? Doesn't say, in this example - no.
RIAA != SCO! (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO is using trumped up, untrue (at least until proven otherwise) press releases and obviously basing much of their arguement on code that is NOT theirs, that they DO NOT own copyright over and is in NO WAY a violation of their IP. Basically, put in simpler terms, they are lieing.
The RIAA is at least representing real copyright violations in some cases. Let's face it, though Jane Doe may be completely innocent, and certainly the RIAA has made gross mistakes in the recent past, no one, even here on /. can deny that there are those who use p2p file sharing software to basically aviod buying music.
SCO is using lies and deceit and running an extortion racket pure and simple, whether you believe that is to simply pump up their stock price or to extort money out of innocent end users of Linux, what they are doing is just plain wrong and should be illegal.
IMHO to even hint at a similarity between the RIAA suits and SCO almost, unintentionally lends credence to the SCO claims. There are those who feel that the RIAA has every right to persue those who share copywritten files. Whether you or I agree with their tactics is not the point, in part, the basis of their claims are legitmate to a much greater extent than anything SCO has uttered.
Please let us not confuse the two here especially amongst the knowlegeable!
The RIAA is using unconstitutional tactics to persue their cause and that is definitely something to be up in arms about and I support Jane Doe, whoever she is in the fight to uphold her constitutional rights. SCO is persuing an entirely bogus CAUSE in the first place so with them the cause itself is wrong.
Thanks for listening, we now return you to your regularly scheduled /. postings.
Re:Tomorow's Headline (Score:1, Insightful)