Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Government Media Music The Courts Education Your Rights Online News

MIT Student Plans to Take on RIAA 169

Posted by Zonk from the go-fightin'-nerds dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MIT Student Plans to Take on RIAA More

MIT Student Plans to Take on RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • 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 ) <mitreya.gmail@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).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )
        It doesn't matter if it's a civil case or a criminal one. The accusing party has the burden of proof.

  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by UdoKeir ( 239957 )
      He could probably sue them for making false statements about the law.

      In an Oct. 4 statement, Dean for Student Life Larry G. Benedict and Jerrold M. Grochow '68, vice president for Information Services & Technology, said, "Unauthorized downloading and sharing of copyrighted files is illegal

      Downloading is not illegal. Sharing (or publishing) a copyrighted work without authorisation is illegal.

      MIT repeats this falsehood on their copyright website: http://web.mit.edu/ist/topics/security/copyright/ [mit.edu]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sancho ( 17056 )
        Assuming your statements were true, most students don't understand that if they're downloading, they're probably uploading, too.

        But your statements aren't true. Making a copy of a copyrighted work violates copyright law. Pure downloaders almost never get caught, which I suspect is the reason for this fallacious belief.

        Now, that said, my personal belief is that downloading should never be illegal, primarily because it's virtually impossible to know for sure that you're downloading from a legitimate source.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by UdoKeir ( 239957 )
          So you're saying if I make a backup of my CDs I'm breaking the law, or if I photocopy a page out of one of my books? Sorry dude, that isn't illegal. Neither is receiving a copied CD from a friend, or an email from with a song that friend.

          If you can cite the specific law that states that receiving a copy of a copyrighted work is illegal, I'll retract the comment.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Sancho ( 17056 )

            So you're saying if I make a backup of my CDs I'm breaking the law, or if I photocopy a page out of one of my books?

            These are covered under special exemptions to copyright law known as fair use. Fair use is an affirmative defense, meaning that the copyright holder can bring you to court, show that you have an unauthorized copy of their work, and then you explain how it got there. If the judge agrees that the copy was fair use, he will dismiss the case.

            This website [goldengate.net] appears to suggest that mere possession of an unauthorized copy may cause you to be liable for copyright infringement:

            Your possession of the unauthorized copy, no matter how brief, still constitutes an infringing act. If the copyright holder happens to catch you with unlawful copies of their works on your hard drive, deleting it won't make a lawsuit go away should they decide to take legal action.

            Now that said, copyright violation

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by UdoKeir ( 239957 )
              OK, so you've made things up, referenced some guy on the internet, and not cited any relevant statutes.

              I don't know where you got your law degree from, but you may want to ask for a refund.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by iabervon ( 1971 )
      As far as I know, MIT hasn't given any information to the RIAA. The RIAA sent them a bunch of documents to pass on the users of particular addresses, and MIT did so without telling the RIAA who they passes the documents on to. This actually seems like the thing that MIT could do that could hurt the RIAA the worst, since it means that people are receiving these letters who the RIAA hasn't gotten any sort of background information on. It's only a matter of time before the RIAA accidentally threatens somebody
      • The question is not about passing on letters to the students. The RIAA is bringing a formal court proceeding against MIT "John Does", seeking an ex parte order to get their confidential information. It will try to get the order, and the subpoena, before the students or MIT even know the proceeding has been brought. MIT will then receive a court order directing it to turn over the information. The RIAA, once it gets the information from MIT, will then withdraw the case, leaving no opportunity for an appeal.

  • 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?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Anakron ( 899671 )

      Instead, use the name of the jock down the hall that you hate anyway.
      Maybe he did. This would be the "jock" saying it wasn't him.

    • Instead, use the name of the jock down the hall that you hate anyway.
      I guess he's SOL then considering its MIT... ;)

  • 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.

  • Undue burden (Score:2, Interesting)

    by esocid ( 946821 )
    From the harvard law's professor's page "frame a motion to quash a subpoena from a copyright holder to the university for the identity of a student downloader on grounds of undue burden."
    So what exactly would be defined as an undue burden? Their request for the student's private information, or their exorbitant damages?

  • 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.

    • 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.

      Thanks, Codebuster. Actually I was hoping some of these [blogspot.com] lawyers [blogspot.com], who are already up in Cambridge, could jump in.

  • One good way to stop the RIAA:

    Take away their revenue stream. And I'm not advocating downloading their* product for free. I'm advocating stopping "consuming" their products altogether. If you listen to their music, you're effectively endorsing it and giving value to what they're peddling.

    Okay so we have the problem that mainstream music is a large part of our (western) culture. And that is a problem.

    * Of course by "their" I mean "their member companies", since the RIAA itself doesn't actually produce an
  • I always read these RIAA prosecution stories and the comments and they are mostly the same. I often wonder, maybe too simplistically, why no one plays this angle. Maybe I pre-date most of those on slashdot but as an avid buyer of vinyl in the 80's, I was wondering if purchasing the record in 1980 that has long since worn out, I might convince a jury that the Music industry actually sold me a defective product, and I was only replacing that product by downloading the MP3 of that album in 2007. Maybe even

  • 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.

    • When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for.

      That really depends on which argument the RIAA/MPAA is spouting at the moment. The 'you purchased a license' argument is used when they are trying to expand copyright to extend past things like 'right of first sale'. However the 'you purchased the CD' is used to try and block format shifting & force you to buy the MP3/ringtone/whatever.

      So what exactly you purchased when you bought that CD is somewhat mutable.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close