RIAA Sues the Wrong Person 686
Cildar writes "In the 'oops' category, the RIAA was forced to withdraw its suit against a 66 year old computer neophyte (read Apple User for god's sake) when they discovered she thought 'Kazaa' was a magician playing at local kids' birthday parties. The story is as reported in the Boston Globe." Update: 09/24 15:19 GMT by T : Note, the magician crack is a joke ;)
Re:Abolish copyright, and this won't happen. (Score:1, Interesting)
Collateral Damage? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Abolish copyright, and this won't happen. (Score:2, Interesting)
You've gotta love this part: (Score:5, Interesting)
The attorneys for the RIAA still plan to investigate her: "Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant"
A user with a Mac, who can't even use Kazaa, and who has never shared music. Now that's obstinance for you.
William
IANAL, But... (Score:3, Interesting)
I honestly feel bad for people who have already given in, but I can't say I really blame them with the "go for the jugular" tactics the RIAA is using.
wow ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess the RIAA doesn't know about Virtual PC (Score:4, Interesting)
~Philly
Re:Abolish copyright, and this won't happen. (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine if it were taken one step further, and like the "Microsoft Tax" where a machine sold without an OS still gives MS $$ for the license on the presumption a pirated Windows will be installed on it, imagine if the RIAA were free to just bill people for the songs they'd "alleged" they'd traded
get a wrong IP, pick this 66 year old user, and they suddenly have a bill for the 2,000 songs they've shared out.
So they don't pay as it's nothing to do with them, and *bang* their credit rating is down the tubes.
THAT isn't far off
Dealt with Foley Hoag (Score:1, Interesting)
Hmm, good advertising (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Awww.. poor babies. (Score:1, Interesting)
Most annoying part (Score:4, Interesting)
So yeah, we screwed the pooch - but we might be back anyway!
On the one hand, I think that the RIAA has a legitimate issue with P2P services sharing their music.
Does that mean that I support the lawsuits? No - I think it's a civil end run around legitimate search and seizure. If I was the RIAA would I be using the lawsuits? No.
Personally, I'd take all the millions in lawyer fees and do something useful, like promote the iTunes Music Store, or pressure Sony and Buymusic.com to not suck more ass than a freshman prison inmate. I'd set up legitimate music downloading services based on Janis Ian's model, where all songs warehoused could be purchased for $1, or an album for $10. I'd set up 128 bit MP3's for $1, have 192 bit for maybe $1.25 - $1.50. Of that, 50% of the profit would go to the artist, 50% to the publisher. Note the word "profit" - it is assumed that the publishers would be taking a fair (bwahahaha - oh, sorry, I almost said that with a straight face) cut based on how much it costs a song to be stored in a central server and bandwidth costs (and that price should not go above $0.50 per song).
It should also be set up like Peanutpress.com, where once you buy a song, you can go back and download it again whenever you want, or can have it streamed wherever you are. (Since songs are much larger than eBooks usually, though, I can see some sort of minor "storage fee", like $0.01 per song per month - it should be your responsibility to back up your own stuff.)
And a quick note for the "$1 per song is too much", I'm sorry if you take this personally, but fuck you. $1 is perfectly legit for a song, $10 for a music album. If you're too damn cheap to pay any price at all for music, at least have the decency not to claim that the cost is too much. Just come out and say "I can't afford $1 after buying my $300 iPod!"
Then, and only then, if people were "sharing songs", then you could sue them, and I would feel you had done your due diligence in serving your customers and could have a solid leg to stand on for the lawsuits.
Re:But theyre still gonna keep an eye on her. (Score:5, Interesting)
A more probable cause is someone used a net sniffing program and changed their IP address hi-jacking her assigned address to protect their identity. On a cable system, it's not too hard to do. It's also possible she has a laptop and has a wide open Wi-Fi. One of her neighbors could have borrowed her connection protected by NAT. I'm sure there will be investigations into this. If I was the wireless neighbor and saw this in the news, I would be ditching all my wireless gear about now and changing out my hard drive.
Re:A strategy by the ISPs? (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless of whether you or I approve of the way the subpeona's are, it's still a legal order.
Most likely the RIAAs timestamps were off. Comcast uses DHCP, the lease times aren't all that long, a few months or so. My IP has changed three times in the year I've been with them.
This isn't as big a deal as slashbots make it out to be, and won't change their strategy, and doesn't make it safe to put your Eminem collection back online.
What about airport? (Score:3, Interesting)
She pays her h4x0r neighbor kid to install her new Airport Extreme network, the kid opens it up and with the money she gives him he buys a cheap wireless card.
Bingo Bango! All the free music he wants.
Re:Abolish copyright, and this won't happen. (Score:1, Interesting)
>cleaner. Abolish carpet cleaner, and this won't
>happen ever again.
Unfortunately, this is the idea many have within the US. They think that because someone was stupid enough to use a product outside its intended use, it is the manufacturer's problem - NOT the idiot with the carpet cleaner fedish.
Think I'm wrong? Pick an industry, any industry. They all have exoberant regulations on them because the US is a nation that fears personal harm but runs in horror from personal responsibility. Freedom gives the right for a person to be an idiot. But why should another's personal freedoms be limited because of another's abuse of that freedom. All are free or none are free.
I think my favorite example of this is a novel breast cancer detection tool. It was an rubber bladder filled with liquid. In the US, the product didn't get FDA approval - so it couldn't be sold. However, every doctor I have ever talked to says that the best detection is self-examination. How? Soap and water in the shower. So along comes a product (that in clinical trials actually detected lumps BETTER than soap and water) that could improve early detection. Let's regulate the crap out of it. Oh, by the way. This was a small company. I wonder if this had been a big medical corporation. Would the product still be mothballed?
People should be held accountable for their actions. This new idea that government has to protect us from ourselves is Orwelling. It is dangerous and thins the gene pool. (Maybe it's time for human kind to keel over and let the dolphins rule the world.)
Re:slashdot is becoming... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah I know.
I tried to submit a story the other day about a new type of alcohol powered battery that can last up to three times as long as current NI-MH batteries.
It would be a god-send for laptops and handhelds of all types, but it doesn't seem like it is one of the "flavors" they want in their "omelette" [slashdot.org].
Re:The U.S. Constitution (Score:4, Interesting)
The most important of which is (was) limits on the scope of government. Only by overturning these limits have we arrived at the system we have today: an overly complex, ambiguous, highly exploitable web of nonsense laws.
Just "License" the whole catalog (Score:3, Interesting)
Can someone answer my question on other software ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Legal defense in a nutshell (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A strategy by the ISPs? (Score:3, Interesting)
>Knowingly responding to a subpeona with false information would get them so deep in shit their great grandchildren would be shovelling
Says who? The subpoenad information is addressed to the plaintiff, not the court, so it's not perjury. Remember, the RIAA don't swear to the truth of their claims, they just argue their validityy in court. I doubt that a third party can be held to a higher standard.
Any actual lawyers want to chime in on this one?
Re:wow ... (Score:5, Interesting)
DCMA gives an assistant/clerk(?) the authority to allow identification based on a subpoena.
Macintosh (Score:2, Interesting)
What happens if they decide to persue her again? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the burden of proof is on the RIAA, then what can they do without a true warrant to search my home? That would go well beyond the powers granted to them by the DMCA and would require law enforcement intervention. There's no way to say "we know you don't own a Mac" without coming into my home to prove it.
If the burden of proof is on me, couldn't I just borrow a Mac or a receipt of a friend's Mac (assuming I was lying) to prove I do, in fact, own a Mac? Since RIAA can't come storming into your house (yet...), this seems like it would be more than satisfactory to meet a civil suit requirement for dismissal doesn't it...?
I hope this is a viable idea, and everyone uses it to stick it to the RIAA.
$100 says she used a wireless unsecured router (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why change out your hard drive? (Score:3, Interesting)
Would look too much like a cover-up with old drive/new install. Easier to claim the HD fried so you replaced the dinky drive with a bigger new drive. The old drive is in the landfill. For charges of the cost of my house per song, ditching the old drive and all wireless gear is very cheap insurance.
Time for full disclosure.. I'm still on dial-up and don't own any wireless gear. DSL is still not avaliable and the cable tax for not having a TV subscription makes the cable too expensive. Slashdot without extensive graphics works fine on dial-up. Not running Kazza or other sharing program except e-mail which can send attachments. I run a LAN but it's all hardwire. I put it in before wireless. It's Cat5. The coax was replaced.
Legal fees? (Score:4, Interesting)
That sucks.
Re:BWAHAHAHAH! (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole thing seems pretty fishy. Or rather, it seems like a fishing expedition. Just like the "Step up and we'll forgive you" schpiel they were handing out a few weeks ago.
Anybody read between the lines? (Score:2, Interesting)
Heck, here is a perfect way for all the ISP's to make this RIAA lawsuit crap go away : when they come asking 'Who has IP address 192.168.2.105 so we can sue them ?!?' just give them bogus replies, pick a customer at random (even better, give them a customer at random that moves less than 100M a month, pretty much insuring it ISN'T a P2P trader.) It will only take about 5 of these in a row before the common public totally freaks out over this witch hunt and says ENOUGH!
Can I copywrite or patent that idea?
Re:Manners maketh man ... And Countersuits Maketh (Score:3, Interesting)
They will apologize only when the court orders them to apologize. Anyone in these same circumstances should countersue, or in this case file a new complaint. Causes of action would be chiefly malicious prosecution, but also illegal business practices, wiretap violations, infringement of privacy, etc.
After all, they have no reason to have her personal information on file. If they choose not to do the right thing then they should themselves be compelled in the courts to do the right thing.
It's not fun to be sued needlessly (exactly this case) for little reason except a large publicity campaign (exactly this case) and to rack up needless legal bills (exactly this case). At least, they should pay her fucking legal bills.
Re:Manners maketh man... (Score:2, Interesting)
I do believe, although I am not 100% sure, that the Foley Hoag attorney,
Colin J. Zick, who magnanimously (tongue firmly in cheek) withdrew the
lawsuit he filed against sculptor and computer neophyte Sarah Seabury Ward
"without prejudice" to refilling is the same Colin Zick who lives at
[DELETED] Sentry Hill Place, Boston Massachusetts 02114 and whose telephone
number is (617) 723-7329. But I could be wrong. But that's okay. Some
politecher might want to sue him anyway in any court in the United States
for anything that he might have done to them, although you're not sure
whether it was him that did it to you or whether any civil violation of
your rights occurred at all. Maybe then he might appreciate that hauling
someone into court and seeking millions of dollars in damages is not very
fun when you are the person wrongly sued and that the methodology by which
RIAA is determining who to sue is flawed. My only question is whether Ms.
Ward's attorney made a motion seeking Rule 11 sanctions against the
plaintiff and its attorney for commencing suit in federal court with no
basis whatsoever in fact.
P.S. I recognize that you may not post this as it contains personally
identifiable information about Mr. Zick and that usually it is not very
cool posting such information to the Internet. However, its not very cool
to sue someone when you do not have your facts straight. So edit it as you
wish if you deem it worthy as fair comment on this situation.
TJH
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
She still loses (Score:3, Interesting)
Question on IP's and WiFi.... (Score:4, Interesting)
What if you are walking down to the local coffee shop and you hop on their "legally free and open" hotspot. You then proceed to share and dload tons of copy righted music. When the IP is traced it will go to that coffee shop, not to you. How do they find you? I assume they can't, unless your there and they are lookign for you at that time and see Kazaa open on your screen for some reason.
Question 2
What if you have a AP at your house that you leave open for your neighbors and friends to use and one of them is sharing files? The IP gets traced to you right, so are you responsible for their actions if you had no knowledge that they would or were doing that?
Inquireing minds want to know