Slashdot Log In
Boston University Student Challenges RIAA
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:40 AM
from the back-off dept.
from the back-off dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A Boston University student identified only as one of the 21 'John Does' in Arista v. Does 1-21 has challenged the RIAA's alleged right to get his or her identity from the school, bringing a motion to vacate the ex parte discovery order obtained by the RIAA, and to quash the subpoena served on the university. John Doe's court papers (PDF) argue, among other things, that the RIAA's papers are 'based on a flawed theory that having copyrighted music files on an individual's computer or on an assigned folder on Boston University's server is a "distribution" of such copyrighted music files, where such folder is merely accessible by others.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: MIT Student Plans to Take on RIAA 169 comments
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."
[+]
RIAA's Boston University Subpoena Quashed 39 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "As first reported by p2pnet, the motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena seeking identities of Boston University students has been granted, at least for the moment. In a 52-page opinion (pdf) the Judge concluded that she could not decide whether or not to quash until she had seen the college's 'Terms of Service Agreement' for internet service. It was only then she could decide what 'expectation of privacy' the students had. She quashed the subpoena calling for the student identities, and told them they could go ahead with a subpoena just for the terms of service agreement. Interestingly the decision was issued on the very same day as the judge in Elektra v. Barker came to some of the same conclusions."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
his argument seems flawed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:4, Interesting)
If you loan a paperback book to a friend, that's ok. (Libraries do it all the time) If the friend copies the paperback, they are guilty of infringement, but I don't see any liability for you.
I'd say he has a good case, unless he intentionally put an electronic sign on his files, saying "Copy These Please!!!"
Parent
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:4, Insightful)
So just put a README in the folder that says that others are NOT allowed to copy the files without permission from the copyright holder... That should be enough.
Parent
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hence the charge is "copyright infringement" and not "theft"
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
This argument would damn every soccer-mom and burger-flipper who plugs a home computer into their cable modem without remembering to set up a firewall. I think that, reading the citations in the motion, they make a good point -- copyright infringement, they argue, requires both intent and commercial gain, not to mention actual infringement (which nobody has proven even happened).
Though I've grown weary of all the crazy analogies flung around on Slashdot of late, I feel the need to provide one of my own: You're sitting in a university library with your laptop, and the guy across the table from you gets up to search the stacks for something, leaving his folder of music CDs on the table. You grab one, stick it in your laptop, and in a couple minutes have ripped a perfect digital copy of it, before the guy even returns. Is he then criminally liable for having permitted you to infringe the copyright of that CD, because he didn't lock up the discs or take them with him? Or, worse, if you have the ability to do exactly what I just described, but don't take advantage of it, is he still liable just for having provided the opportunity for infringement?
BTW, I'm not sure this motion is on the behalf of a single defendant, but all of them (it's listed as representing Does 1-21).
Parent
A better analogy... (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously *WTF* is with all the analogies. The original concept is not that hard to completely understand. If he put it in his home directory, and the default permissions were open (i.e. umask being set stupidly), then I would say he has an argument. However, if he had to explicitly change permissions on it, or put it in something analagous to a 'public_html', intent to distribute can be argued. If you put a big sign on your drive saying 'I put music on here, feel free to copy it', it's obvious you are inviting the activity.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, just because the files are there, does not mean they were put there with the intent to distribute them to the populace in general. While the folders may have been public, the fact is no one is under any obligation to change the permissions on a folder. And it's also possible that changing the permission might make the content inaccessible to some form of media player that would access the folder. Also, even if the permissions are changed, that does not stop someone with adequate knowledge or superu
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:4, Interesting)
Sera
Parent
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:5, Informative)
What he is arguing is, at least as I see it: "Just because I left it in a public place does not mean anyone actually copied it. You have not claimed anyone but your agent has copied it, you have not claimed that I invited anyone to copy it, you have not claimed that I was aware anyone has copied it, nor that I as even aware they they could be copied." (Emphasis mine, the original word was "alleged")
A possibly poor analogy: I leave a CD on a table in a public place (a public park, say), for whatever reason. An RIAA agent comes by, sees the CD, and noticed he can pick it up. They then subpoena the town/city for all records of who was in the park that day, sitting at that particular table, because someone was "distributing" music illegally.
The kicker is, he cites supporting law verbage and other court cases where this situation was determined to not be copyright infringement.
IANAL though. Grain of salt for ya...
=Smidge=
Parent
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:4, Informative)
Note that since the defendant is not a library, this exception does not apply to him.
Parent
Jackie Chiles to the rescue! (Score:3, Funny)
Civil negligence?! (Score:3, Insightful)
A few questions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A few questions... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
the problem is you're trying to be fair (Score:4, Insightful)
you should stop asking questions with the idea of fairness in the forefront of your mind. instead work along the mental model of schoolyard bully trying to get what he wants, then the answer to your questions are obvious:
"no, you can't do that, because i don't control it. that's not fair? too bad"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Security hacking and online storage (Score:5, Interesting)
This could lead to some interesting complications when dealing with online storage.
For example, if a person has music online and believes that it is secured, would they be liable if someone breaks in and makes it available to others? I could see instances where this other person breaks in, makes the music available and then reports to the RIAA after a number of downloads are done.
Now some people would say that security is your responsibility, but how do you handle environments where someone else is providing a service and you don't control everything?
Interesting approach (Score:3, Interesting)
If I stream music off my hard drive, how is this different than playing it over the speakers?
If people play it off my hard drive how is that different than playing it over the speakers.
The above assumes private playing of a valid music source.
There is a very fine distinction to be argued here. That will have to cover buffering, decoding and all sorts of stuff.
They already cover your basic premise... (Score:4, Interesting)
"if the performance is by audio means only, the performance is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space"
So if you set up a sound system that can scale to a larger venue, you can be considered to be intentionally broadcasting it. Putting data in an explicitly shared would be considered analogous to that.
These 'gray lines' people like to jump on in terms of real-world analogies have been recognized and answered in law already. You can probably reasonably tell whether the person's share was intentional or incidental (most modern OSes and large-scale networks make it hard to accidentally share data such that people can get it without circumventing or bypassing a mechanism meant to prevent it). If his directory was by default world readable, there is a fair argument he was using it for his own purposes never realizing the world could get at it. If he put it in something like public_html, it's hard to argue that he didn't mean it. In which case, public_html would be like putting a few hundred speakers throughout a town and playing the music, and then claiming you didn't mean for anyone but you to hear it.
Parent
I wish they would sue those boom box cars (Score:5, Funny)
Sometimes they distribute music to her from 5:30am to 2am.
One more analogy... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One more analogy... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Lost iPod on train... (Score:3, Interesting)
does that mean that i have to throw away all my CDs at home? I mean, if that iPod is now in someone else's hands, i've "distributed" music - and would be liable under the rules... remember, a CD is nothing more than shiny plastic... i'm given a license to listen to that music... i don't "own" anything but the shiny plastic.
what if i was robbed? As far as i can tell, not only would i have been robbed of my iPod, but i'd have to go home and throw out my CDs on top of it, else, i'd be liable for distributing hundreds of CD's worth of copyrighted materials.
When I Broadcast My Music... (Score:4, Interesting)
Am I breaking the law?
Are the people who made and sold this device breaking the law?
If yes to the above, why haven't they been sued out of existence yet?
(Note: this is an illustration to prove the ridiculous positions that the RIAA has attempted to stretch existing laws.)
The "making available" issue (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The "making available" issue (Score:4, Funny)
MR. OPPENHEIM: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
MR. OPPENHEIM: Good afternoon, that's right.
Its as if they woke up on somebody's carpet, ran into a tailor's store, grabbed a suit, and walked in to sue someone, but that's to be expected from RIAA.
Parent
Re:*Ding* (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently a judge (most likely federal) told them that they *must* sue individuals and not large groups of people, unless those people were all involved in the alleged lawbreaking as a whole unit (ie. conspiracy) or a single occurance. Basically the judge told them they couldn't do this just because it was convenient for them. What it amounts to is that a single case with 21 "John Doe" persons = 1 filing fee (read; less money). But since each person's alleged infringement has no relation to the other's, they are *supposed* to file 21 separate cases (read: significantly more money).
Also, by doing it this way, it costs more money for the court to send out the proper notices to the participants. Money that they aren't getting from the RIAA.
*Money that we pay in our taxes.*
Parent
Re:*Ding* (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:*Ding* (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:*Ding* (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have copyrighted media on your computer, in a publically available share, that is pretty much distribution.
Example: You live somewhere, where the is street traffic. Now, lets say within arms reach of the street, you place [something]
[Something] is either
(a) Illegal to distribute (not necessarily posses, just distribute)
(b) Illegal to distribute to minors
(c) Illegal to distribute to others not possesing a license.
Are yo
Re:I say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I say... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Is it illegal to borrow a legally published version of copyrighted material?
2) Is it illegal to copy borrowed material?
2b) If 2 is true, who is at fault when material is copied, the copier or the lender?
Given libraries are legal, 1 is a definite "no". 2, I think, is most likely illegal. The key question here is 2b.
I can't see any viable way the vendor/lender can be held responsible for items sold/lent being used illegally. With the possible exception of regulated/dangerous items such as guns or other weapons, it's not criminal for a store to sell someone a hammer without making them sign a statement claiming they won't use it for illegal purposes. It's not the store's fault some nut bought pencils and started killing people with them.
Similarly, if it is legal to "borrow" music but not copy it is not the student's fault the files were copied. The other users could simply have listened to the music files from the shared folder without copying them, and thus "borrowed" them. That they weren't content to simply "borrow" the music isn't the fault of the student who opened his music collection to the public.
That's how I see it anyway.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's worth noting that everything you listed there is considered in some way harmful by someone. No one really considers music (overall) to be harmful*. If you went and set a stack of CD's on the street that said "take one", no one is going to freak out.
*Yes, I know some people rail against explicit lyrics, but that says nothing of other forms of music. Let's not get pedantic here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You live somewhere, where the is street traffic. Now, lets say within arms reach of the street, you place [something] either
(a) Illegal to distribute (not necessarily posses, just distribute)
(b) Illegal to distribute to minors
(c) Illegal to distribute to others not possesing a license.
Are you breaking the law by putting it out there in the open, where anyone can access it trivially?
So you think it should be illegal to leave your keys in your car? That covers (b) and (c).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm. So by that logic, anybody broadcasting unsecured wi-fi into your laptop's airspace is distributing internet access. Unfortunately, the law disagrees with that assessment. There have been multiple cases now of people being arrested for accessing such "distributed" resources.
Just out of curiosity: if I leave my car unlocked on a publicly accessible street, do you feel I am "distributing"
Re:I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, the comparison to the RIAA's case is -- a police officer walks up to my truck, reaches in and takes the disks out of the visor.
And then he arrests me.
And *I* get charged with a crime.
If that's the legal definition of distributing copyrighted materials, then we have a much bigger problem with our legal system then just the RIAA.
Parent
Re:I say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's try a different take:
I make some modifications to my copy of Linux. I leave a copy of the compiled version in a directory that's accessible to anybody on the internet who knows where to look. When someone demands the source code, I tell him to go to hell because I'm not distributing anything. Can I get sued for violating the GPL?
Parent
Of course, he might not be distributing it (Score:5, Insightful)
But what if his intent was only to give himself access to his data from any location on campus?
In that case, it is not distribution. It is giving himself location free and operating system unlimited access to his purchased content.
If possession is 9/10ths of the law, then my receipt says I can do whatever I want with my legally purchased content so long as I don't produce copies for financial gain.
There is law against selling copies of content without access to copyrights. There is law against copying content without access to copyrights. There is no law against making one's legally purchased content accessible to oneself (unless you break encryption in the process).
Parent
Re:Of course, he might not be distributing it (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Cry me a river (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy fix, dude. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Admittedly, it could (and has been in other posts) be