Slashdot Log In
RIAA Campaign Against Students Hits Stormier Seas
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Aug 09, 2007 03:31 PM
from the get-out-of-the-pool dept.
from the get-out-of-the-pool dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "It's been astutely observed that the RIAA's "ex parte" campaign against "John Doe" college students seems to have run into much stormier waters than its campaign against regular folks. Discovery motions were thrown out by the judges in cases involving the University of New Mexico and the College of William and Mary, and motions to quash have been made by students at Boston University, Oklahoma State University, and the University of South Florida. The RIAA might find it particularly troubling that the students are coming in armed with substantial expert witness declarations attacking the entire underpinning of the RIAA's case, that the students are finding each other and banding together, and that the Chairman of Boston University's Computer Science Department went to bat — as an expert witness — for the BU students."
Related Stories
[+]
Judge Says No to RIAA Subpoena Request 154 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "For at least the second time, a federal judge has dealt the RIAA's campaign against college students a blow by refusing an ex parte motion by the RIAA for a subpoena against college students. In Newport News, Virginia, Judge Walter D. Kelley, Jr., denied the RIAA's motion for information about students at the College of William and Mary. The Court denied the motion outright, saying it was unauthorized by law. (pdf) Last month it was reported that a New Mexico judge had denied a similar motion directed against University of New Mexico students on the ground that it should not have been made ex parte."
[+]
Oklahoma Security Expert Attacks RIAA Claims 280 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A group of Oklahoma University students has made a motion to vacate the ex parte order the RIAA had obtained compelling the university to turn over their names and addresses. In support of their motion was the expert witness declaration (PDF) of a computer security and forensics expert who essentially attacked the entire premise of the RIAA's lawsuit, characterizing the declaration upon which the RIAA based its motion as 'factually erroneous' and 'misleading.' Among other things he pointed out that 'An individual cannot be uniquely identified by an IP address,' and that 'Many computers can be connected to the Internet with identical IP addresses as long as they remain behind control points.' The students are represented by the same Oklahoma lawyer who recently obtained a award for $68,000-plus in attorneys fees against the RIAA in Capitol v. Foster."
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.
Now there's education (Score:5, Insightful)
good (Score:5, Informative)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Students... now... these are groups of young people with common interests and copious amounts of free time, who are looking for worthy causes to fight that can define their generation, and have much less to lose as they don't have mortgages, families, and savings. Except for lawyers, you couldn't target a worse group of people. Trying to come down harder on them will make them come together more and strengthen their resolve to stamp out this persecution, a perceived abuse of their civil and human rights.
Good. It's time the RIAA got it's ass kicked and it's especially humbling that it's students doing it - probably the worst offenders on the RIAA hitlist.
They might have targetted lawyers too (Score:5, Insightful)
1. I'd imagine that any university would at least have a legal department, or a contract with some lawyer firm, or whatever. They may not be of the caliber of IBM, whose lawyers have been said to be like the Nazgul or darken the skies, but they have or can afford someone who knows whether a "bend over and give us your money and a self-incriminating confession" letter actually has any legal basis or not.
Basically it's not just that students are connected, it's that it only takes one university to feel targeted as an organization, to be a lot more organized in fighting back. When you target isolated persons or even some (incompetently-led) tiny companies, you can bully them around or pull a "stand and deliver" and scare them into actually giving you their money. When you target someone with lawyers, they'll ask those first.
2. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the universities actually had law one of the majors. So they'd have a lot of people whose whole job there is to learn about that kind of stuff, and, worse yet, some whose job is to teach it.
And the former can go ask the latter. I mean, it's not like Jane Grandma who'll be like "omg, where will I find a good lawyer, and can I possibly afford one?" If you have someone teaching you law courses, it just begs to go ask him about law.
3. Student connections run wider than just that campus. Even if you target a pure technical university, some of those students will be the son/daughter of a lawyer (Bill Gates was the son of a wealthy lawyer, for example), some will be dating a cute law student because those universities have more women, etc.
Basically, individual John Doe lawsuits/law-threats can be carefully targeted against people who statistically should be more likely to be defenseless. If your list of IPs includes one for the head of a famous law firm, you'd have to be a dolt to send him a pseudo-legal nastygram. But when you take a shotgun approach among such a big group as a university, you may well end up targeting the son of that same lawyer.
in defense of the RIAA: (Score:5, Funny)
ha!
we have LAWYERS
lots and lots of LAWYERS
platoons of them!
fact: there is no problem we the RIAA have faced that couldn't be solved just by throwing LAWYERS at it. a problem? sue someone! PROBLEM SOLVED! don't you people get it?
in fact, the entirety of human technological progress, in the form of the internet ruining our business model, means nothing. we can stop progress itself by just suing people
sue! sue! sue! there: it's all gold and honey again, no more problems
don't you silly college students get it yet?
You forgot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You forgot... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You forgot... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So do we (Score:5, Insightful)
They're also academic in their understanding of the law, which means that given the shaky ground RIAA lawsuits are standing on, they are unlikely to win.
Re:So do we (Score:5, Insightful)
Students are the biggest activist demographic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Soylent green?
Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we will soon see the day when CD players will go the way of tape decks, and all of your music will be transmitted wirelessly from your online music accounts to your home computer, your portable music player, and your car stereo.
Re:Students are the biggest activist demographic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess University of Washington is one .. (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps a bad move (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Perhaps a bad move (Score:5, Interesting)
From a technological evidence stand point, the RIAA doesn't have a leg to stand on. Us techies have known that for a while. But, I think it's the first group to really have the confidence to stand up, the know how to contradict and the desire to stick it to them.
If this group can keep banding together, I think the RIAA's legal tactics may hit a sudden and disastrous roadblock.
Re:Perhaps a bad move (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's a fair bet that they actually understand how the Internet works, or at least have access to people who do, which ultimately is probably the thing that the MAFIAA should fear more than anything else.
And following that observation, it's never been clear to me whether the MAFIAA purposely hire clueless "experts" for deposition or whether they honestly don't understand the technology.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ents (Score:5, Interesting)
At some point, decent people get riled up over injustice and finally do something about it. These RIAA lawyers have been bullying pre-schoolers long enough. "I'm telling my big brother" is coming home to them.
Use the market RIAA. Learn to compete. Give up on old technology and old ways of distributing music. Nobody wants to buy your 5 cent disk with 9 bad songs for highway robbery prices just to listen to one song you should allow to be downloaded at a cheap enough rate so that folks will stop bothering to pirate (not steal; remember, pirates are simply a form of entrepeneurs).
From a link in the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
And so continues the witch-hunt for dear ol' 162.83.177.207.
I hope the new generation of musicians refuse to sign record labels with major companies. Considering how powerful a home studio can now be, it's a whole lot more feasible than it was 30 years ago..
Re:From a link in the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, it's songs again that rule. The ease of obtaining (legally or illegally) single songs means the death of the album as a major profit center. The fact is that Phil Spector was right when he called the album "two hits and ten pieces of junk". The vast majority of long play vinyl and CDs are populated by junk. Is there some reason that people like Britney Spears or Madonna have to release twelve song collections? Let's face it, in the vast jungle of albums out there since the LP took off in the late 1950s, there are perhaps a few dozen genuine masterpieces in any given genre of music.
I think the smart artists and studios will realize that there is a golden opportunity here to shed the 800 lb. gorilla of the record company and its distribution networks. For decades, these guys have been robbing artists blind, while they made untold millions. That's okay for the upper echelon of artists like U2 or the Beach Boys, whose volume of sales is such that even a fraction means big bucks. But there's all those middle tier and Indie guys who don't sell that number, and for them, being able to direct sell, or hell, even just give away the music and make their money off of the gigs and the merchandising that this new era could mean prosperity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:From a link in the article... (Score:4, Interesting)
LPs are probably one of the biggest rip-offs in recording history. There's some argument for them as far as classical pieces or extended jazz pieces and the like. But come on, for every Dark Side of the Moon out there, there are hundreds of piles of crap with maybe one or two redeeming songs to be found.
Defeating the RIAA != Supporting Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the RIAA is that it has very questionable practices in regards to its sending subpeona's and when it sues people not that piracy is right.
The problem is that it believes itself to be a police force with powers to investigate and aprehend criminals. It does not.
However that does not mean that piracy is ok. It only means that evil corporations are evil. While you may argue that information wants to be free and copyrights are badly flawed that does not mean your piracy is not against the law. It's the practice of the RIAA that are unlawful not its intent.
I'm going to get crucified, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I'm sure most people have music that isn't theirs on their computer. But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people. I think that people shouldn't be crucified for having some songs that aren't theirs on their systems, if they also buy plenty of music. But if you never or almost never buy music, and your entire collection is pirated, then by all means, the RIAA should go after you.
I oppose the RIAA on privacy grounds, and because the logic used (downloading is NOT piracy, if you own it, I believe), but if peoples attitudes really now is that they should pirate rather than buy, then I think the RIAA is between a rock and a hard place, and they can't simply ignore that.
And please, keep the arguments about RIAA music being not worth the money out of this - if you don't think it's worth the money, then you don't have a right to have it. You've made that choice.
Re:You aren't wrong, but it depends (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm going to get crucified, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I really hope that most peoples attitudes isn't "why would we buy music when we can pirate it" these days. If it is, maybe the RIAA should be suing people.
You seem to think only the little guy can commit a crime. It is a crime for large companies to fix prices and kill competition.
Agreed - so do something about that crime. Two wrongs don't make a right/etc.
It is a crime to harass under-privileged children and the handicapped.
Depends what you're harassing them for. If you mean by suing them... well, are they copying music they don't own? If so, it isn't harassing.
It is a crime to take 1000s of dollars from common people who probably cannot afford it, who just may be downloading music because they can't pay the highway robbery prices charged for 5 cents of plastic and 9 bad songs.
This is absolutely NOT a crime. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. People can't afford cars, software, etc, should they then be allowed to just take those? RIAA music is not a life necessity.
It is a crime to also harass artists (you seem to think all artists are actually happy with the record labels -- please read up on John Fogerty). It is a crime to force John Fogerty into court and him prove that he doesn't sound like himself in hopes of raping him for more millions than you've already raped him for (does the tune "Vance Can't Dance" ring a bell?).
I in no way think that the RIAA is perfect, or that it does things the right way. I made no statement to that effect. But again, this has nothing to do with whether or not you should be pirating music.
It is a crime to attempt to hinder innovation by forcing worthless and spent technology (CDs) just so you can keep a hold on your empire.
Well, I disagree that the CD is worthless or spent. I see no better hard media out there? Digital downloads are nice, but they don't replace the CD. Regardless, that is not in any way a crime. It's their choice to release their music that way - they have the right to do that.
Do you honestly think it will stop with people downloading music?
Absolutely not. But what's the choice? For the RIAA to simply LET people download music for free? Like I said, I don't support the RIAA - but they are between a rock and a hard place. What's your method for stopping pirating?
As more and more artists are able to create music outside of mainstream record labels, congress will be lobbied, somehow, to shut that down. The RIAA is a monster with money and they will use their huge reserves to continue to harass all sides, not just the evil people you seem to think represent the real villians attacking the harmless RIAA who, after all, care so much for the artists you mention....
I never mentioned an artist. And yet again, I never claimed to like the RIAA or their methods - but again, it is their (distribution) rights.
History lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant."
Re:History lesson (Score:5, Informative)
RIAA's then-prez Rosen got into a Debate with The Oxford Union and she got a serious shellacking. This was 2002.
"The Oxford Union debated the proposition that "the free music mentality is a threat to the future of music" (via The Reg and NTK). Final scores: 72 ayes, 256 noes. A pretty resounding defeat. The report notes that a few of the more memorable bits of the debate include Hilary Rosen lying about copy-protected CDs in the US (or at the very least being deliberately ingenuous about it), Rosen also getting shocked at how many people said that they do buy music because of filesharing, and a few unsupported assertions about the importance of the music industry which no-one was allowed to contest. For more background on this debate, see the Campaign for Digital Rights."
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/26/2
Do ya think they learned from that?
Naw.
The Internet Changes Everything (Score:5, Interesting)
In the SCO versus IBM + The Entire Linux Community, Groklaw provided a full-time forum for commentary and suggestions, and Slashdot covered the subject often. Among all the First Posts and other chaff must have been more than a few nuggets of wisdom.
In the fight of The RIAA versus The Entire Civilized World, this is taken yet another step further. While IBM was as technically savvy as its opponent, lawyers (apologies to Ray), Judges (no apologies to too many of them still, but some are getting it finally), and most users aren't very knowledgeable about computers, software, the Internet, the law, and what it all means. Neither is the RIAA knowledgeable in these areas, as they are too often making very evident.
Because of widespread interest in the subject, along with a general dislike of big business in general, there is a collaboration here the likes of which couldn't have ever happened even a few short years ago. The RIAA has thousands more enemies than they've yet sued, all of whom are willing to contribute what bit of knowledge they have to bring that lying (we're only doing this for the poor starving artists) colossus down. And because of their identical, boilerplate cases, they only have to lose on one point to lose them all! And its the Internet that's making all this possible. People communicate in ways they never could before.
Students, among other things, also have a lot of time on their hands, and a great ire when they think they've been wronged. That's a volatile mix that the RIAA may soon wish they'd left alone. Suing grandmothers (unless it happens to be Neville Longbottom's Gram) is safer than motivated students just looking for the next cause celeb.
All in all, I'd say the RIAA has made yet another major misstep. Maybe this will be their last one, since if successful, the students will provide the roadmap to kill all of these cases where they should be killed -- at the illegal, unethical, ex parte stage. If so, the world will be a better place for you and me (lyric used under Fair Use provisions).
They're going after the wrong crowd... (Score:5, Interesting)
Suing students has never been a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
-smart. Well, there are those and those, but usually, they got more brains than your average Joe.
-political. Not as much as they used to be, and certainly not "party political" anymore, but they do have agendas they believe in.
-young and thus enthusiastic. They didn't yet grow up into "meh, what can I do?" apathetics.
-free. Yes, there IS stress towards the end of a term, but hey, it's August! Many students still enjoy holidays, and few if any have papers due soon. They got spare time on their hands.
If you look around the world, you'll notice that pretty much every revolution, from political to social, contained students as a key element. Many social revolutions of the 60s have been driven by students, in Germany, in France, in the US.
Now, you're suing smart people who believe strongly in their freedom and their rights and do care about it, with plenty of spare time to defend themselves. Could it be that this wasn't the smartest idea?
Many universities won't fight very hard (Score:3, Interesting)
To those of you who think our university should provide free and unfettered access so students can do anything they want might want to consider how that activity infringes on other educational and business activities of the institution. Those who want to collect and or otherwise make available MP3s are welcome to do so at their personal expense on their home networks. To date, nobody has come forward attempting to justify a bona fide educational need for collecting or sharing MP3s, et al.
*Major* (pun intended) miscalculation (Score:4, Funny)
Has anyone at the RIAA been to a University? LOL.
They should have stuck to twelve-year-old girls and their terrified parents. They're going to get their asses handed to them on any campus, especially private schools. Anyone who can afford a private school education is likely to be able to afford one hell of a defense.
--
Toro
Scoob (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does this have broader implications? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does this have broader implications? (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely.
Re:out of date marketing methods (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't like DRM because of all the compatibility issues and ease of use issues, but if it stops people from pirating (it doesn't, really), then it may be worth it.
Also, that's THEIR decision to make. They own the rights to distribute the content. It isn't my decision, it isn't your decision. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I primarily buy music on iTunes that is in iTunes Plus (DRM free 256kbps), thereby saying that yes, I like DRM free music. But I don't pirate music just because it has DRM and I'm opposed to DRM. I'll buy the CD in that case.
Re:out of date marketing methods (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM violates the social contract that allows them to control distribution of creative works.
DRM should void any copyright protection.
If the Librarian of Congress can't archive it, then the FBI shouldn't be used to prosecute those that pirate the work and the US Courts should not be used by corporations to sue those that the FBI won't prosecute.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Your tears are like milk.
Re:Reading Your Blog (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You could ask Google. (Score:4, Informative)
* Simply having files containing potentially unauthorized copies of music is not a violation: the entity distributing the music is responsible for any copyright violations.
* That the RIAA has not shown that the defendants were aware they they were even potentially distributing the files.
* The only distribution that the RIAA has shown to have been performed by the defendants was authorized by the RIAA and therefore wasn't a copyright violation.
This is actually pretty solid, and while of course there are several things the RIAA can do to cover these gaping holes in their approach there's not much they can do about the current case if these arguments prevail.
Re:And in the end... (Score:4, Insightful)
The industry was well-paid long before Napster came along, is still well-paid (way past the point of obscenity) and will continue to be well-paid for the foreseeable future. Cash flow, as such, is not the problem here so far as the music studios are concerned, in spite of their tired old "{this or that technology} will destroy the industry!" mantra. God, I am so sick of these self-serving bastards and their extreme view of their own importance to society.
They're irritated that they've lost some control of distribution, and are upset because sales growth isn't what it once was. The music business is still strong: there are many factors that have influenced their overall profitability, of which downloading is only one, and by no means the most significant. Depending upon which study you believe, their current financial condition may very well have been bolstered by illegal downloading. Way to go team!
Furthermore, your presumption that artists aren't making any money due to people downloading songs from P2P is a. wrong and b. forgetful of the simple fact that they've never been paid properly. The studios have been ripping off their artists since, well
As for the Feds monitoring every connection in the United States