Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Oregon AG Seeks to Investigate RIAA Tactics

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 30, 2007 02:41 PM
from the investigating-the-mafiaa dept.
Government The Courts Media Music Businesses News
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Turning the tables on the RIAA's attempt to subpoena information from the University of Oregon, that state's Attorney General has now filed additional papers to conduct immediate discovery into the RIAA's 'data mining' techniques. These techniques include the use of unlicensed investigators, the turning over of subpoenaed information to collection agencies, and the obtaining of personal information from computers. The AG pointed out (pdf) that 'Because Plaintiffs routinely obtain ex parte discovery in their John Doe infringement suits ... their factual assertions supporting their good cause argument are never challenged by an adverse party and their investigative methods remain free of scrutiny. They often settle their cases quickly before defendants obtain legal representation and begin to conduct discovery.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] New Attorneys Fee Decision Against RIAA 144 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has gotten slammed again, this time in Oregon, as the Magistrate Judge in Atlantic v. Andersen has ruled that Tanya Andersen's motion for attorneys fees should be granted. The Magistrate, in his 15-page decision, noted that, despite extensive pretrial discovery proceedings, 'when plaintiffs dismissed their claims in June 2007, they apparently had no more material evidence to support their claims than they did when they first contacted defendant in February 2005.....' and concluded that 'Copyright holders generally, and these plaintiffs specifically, should be deterred from prosecuting infringement claims as plaintiffs did in this case.' This is the same case in which (a) the RIAA insisted on interrogating Ms. Andersen's 10-year-old girl at a face-to-face deposition, (b) the defendant filed RICO counterclaims against the record companies, and (c) the defendant recently converted her RICO case into a class action"
[+] U.of Oregon Says No to RIAA 241 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The University of Oregon has filed a motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena for information on student identities in what is believed to be the first such motion made by a university with support from the state Attorney General. The motion (pdf) explains that it is impossible to identify the alleged infringers from the information the RIAA has presented: 'Five of the seventeen John Does accessed the content in question from double occupancy dorm rooms at the University. With regard to these Does, the University is able to identify only the room where the content was accessed and whether or not the computer used was a Macintosh or a PC ... The University cannot determine whether the content in question accessed by one occupant as opposed to another, or whether it was accessed instead by a visitor.' The AG's motion further argues (pdf) that "Plaintiffs' subpoena is unduly burdensome and overbroad. It seeks information that the University does not readily possess. In order to attempt to comply with the subpoena, the University would be forced to undertake an investigation to create discovery for Plaintiffs — an obligation not imposed by Rule 45. As the University is unable to identify the alleged infringers with any accuracy, it cannot comply with its federal obligation to notify students potentially affected by the subpoena. One commentator has likened the AG's argument to saying, in effect, that the RIAA's evidence is 'rubbish'."
Submission: Oregon AG Seeks to investigate RIAA tactics by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032)
[+] Your Rights Online: RIAA Protests Oregon AG Discovery Request 172 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is apparently having an allergic reaction to the request by the State Attorney General of Oregon for information about the RIAA's investigative tactics. The request came in Arista v. Does 1-17, the Portland, Oregon, case targeting students at the University of Oregon. Not only are the record companies opposing the request (pdf), they're asking the Judge not to even read it. (pdf)"
[+] RIAA Backs Down On "Unlicensed Investigator" 191 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Texas grandmother Rhonda Crain got the RIAA to drop its monetary claims against her after she filed counterclaims against the record companies for using an investigator, MediaSentry, which is not licensed to conduct investigations in the State of Texas. The RIAA elected to drop its claims rather than wait for the Judge to decide the validity of Ms. Crain's charges (PDF) that the plaintiff record companies were 'aware that the... private investigations company was unlicensed to conduct investigations in the State of Texas specifically, and in other states as well... and understood that unlicensed and unlawful investigations would take place in order to provide evidence for this lawsuit, as well as thousands of others as part of a mass litigation campaign.' Similar questions about MediaSentry's unlicensed investigations were raised recently by the State Attorney General of Oregon in Arista v. Does 1-17"
[+] Is RIAA's MediaSentry Illegal in Your State? 200 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Is Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG 'investigator' MediaSentry operating illegally in your state?. The Massachusetts State police has already banned the company, and it's been accused of operating without a license in Oregon, Florida, Texas, and New York. Similar charges have now been leveled the organization in Michigan. Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth, in response to a complaint, has confirmed that MediaSentry is not licensed in Michigan, and referred the complainant to the local prosecutor."
[+] Marshall University Challenges RIAA 117 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Marshall University, in Huntington, West Virginia, has become just the second US college or university to show the moxie to stand up for its students instead of instantly caving in to RIAA extortion. In February, Marshall, represented by the Attorney General of the State of West Virginia, made a motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena for student identities, pointing out in exquisite detail in its long-time IT guy's affidavit (PDF) the impossibility of identifying copyright 'infringers' based on the RIAA's meager evidence. Unfortunately, the Magistrate — under the mistaken impression that the RIAA isn't going to sue the identified students, but merely wants to talk to them — recommended that the subpoena be okayed by the District Judge (PDF). It is not yet known whether Marshall will be filing objections. The first US college or university known to have attacked the RIAA's subpoena was the University of Oregon, which — also represented by its state's Attorney General — made a motion to quash last November, and even questioned the legality of the RIAA's methods. The Oregon motion is still pending."
[+] Oregon Judge Says RIAA Made 'Honest Mistake,' Allows Subpoena 175 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Arista v. Does 1-17, the RIAA's case targeting students at the University of Oregon, the Oregon Attorney General's motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena — pending for about a year — has reached a perplexing conclusion. The Court agreed with the University that the subpoena, as worded, imposed an undue burden on the University by requiring it to produce 'sufficient information to identify alleged infringers,' which would have required the University to 'conduct an investigation,' but then allowed the RIAA to subpoena the identities of 'persons associated by dorm room occupancy or username with the 17 IP addresses listed' even though those people may be completely innocent. In his 8-page decision (PDF), the Judge also 'presumed' the RIAA lawyers' misrepresentations were an 'honest mistake,' made no reference at all to the fact, pointed out by the Attorney General, that the RIAA investigators (Safenet, formerly MediaSentry) were not licensed, rejected all of the AG's privacy arguments under both state and federal law, and rejected the AG's request for discovery into the RIAA's investigative tactics."
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.

Oregon AG Seeks to Investigate RIAA Tactics 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Common Sense!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by physicsboy500 (645835) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:45PM (#21536845)
    Wow, hopefully this isn't shot down in the court system, and honestly if there's any common sense left in the courts (which there seems to be a slowly increasing amount of) it won't be. There have been far too many cases of snooping going unchecked, be it RIAA, NSA, FBI, etc.

    Can't wait for updates to this one.

    • Re:Common Sense!? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Osurak (1013927) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:47PM (#21536889)
      Wow, hopefully this isn't shot down in the court system, and honestly if there's any common sense left in the courts (which there seems to be a slowly increasing amount of) it won't be. There have been far too many cases of snooping going unchecked, be it RIAA, NSA, FBI, etc.

      One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just...doesn't belong!

    • Criminal? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2007, @03:41PM (#21537563)
      Is there any hope that they'll indict these folks with criminal charges? Especially for the "unlicensed investigators" bit?

      Because I'd sure love to see MediaSentry/BayTSP get shafted like MediaDefender was. With any luck, the latter will go out of business given that they lost the better part of a million dollars over the email leak and they were already operating pretty far into the red.

      Also, is there any chance of this opening them up to lawsuits from those who were "investigated"? In other words, might Oregon (or other) residents be able to file a class action even if they already settled with the RIAA?

      I'd love to see more lawyers set their sights on the RIAA. When you declare war on your customers (and yes, even "pirates" buy stuff, unless they're boycotting them now), you're NOT going to win the war.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Paradise Pete (33184)
      Wow, hopefully this isn't shot down in the court system

      At least one of the items listed could lead to criminal prosecution. If the AG decided to file charges it would have an enormous effect. And if other AGs in other states indicate they might follow that lead it will be some mighty nervous times for the Media Sentry boys and the lot.

  • This sounds hilarious eh I mean fun (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:46PM (#21536873) Journal

    What does this mean, if I read it correctly is this really the state department responsible for prosecuting CRIMINAL cases who has launched ON THEIR OWN an investigation of RIAA methods?

    Is Oregon some red state of the US? Is the prosecutor involved to old to care about his career?

    I hate to get excited over nothing but this seems like a major setback for the RIAA and their underhanded tactics. A real criminal investigation? Neat.

    • Re:This sounds hilarious eh I mean fun (Score:5, Funny)

      by queequeg1 (180099) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:57PM (#21537007)
      Oregon a redstate? Not a chance. A bunch of granola eating, tree hugging, hairy legged druids. Well, not literally, but the spirit is definitely there.

      • Oregon a redstate? Not a chance. A bunch of granola eating, tree hugging, hairy legged druids. Well, not literally, but the spirit is definitely there.
        Hey! I resemble that remark, you insensitive clod!
      • Well, I do have hairy legs, but I'm a celiac and stick mostly to meat and potatoes.
      • It's a nice place to live in spite of those people anyways.

      • Re:This sounds hilarious eh I mean fun (Score:4, Informative)

        by Forbman (794277) on Friday November 30 2007, @04:54PM (#21538447)
        actually, most of the state, at least by county, is "red". But Multnomah and Washington Counties, Lane Co and more or less Marion County (good chunks of Portland Metro, Eugene and Salem), are "blue", which is more than 50% of the state's population. The rest of Oregon is pretty red, although it is a wide variety of "red", from Fightin' Fundies (clackamas Co), to your basic conservative farmer/rancher/logger, to a good chunk of white trash-supremists in southern oregon.

    • Re:This sounds hilarious eh I mean fun (Score:5, Informative)

      by jbf (30261) on Friday November 30 2007, @03:07PM (#21537133)
      Don't get too happy yet. The AG's office serves as counsel to state agencies, of which U of Oregon is one. They're not launching an investigation (e.g. this is not a People vs MediaSentry); they're seeking evidence which they can use to quash the subpoena proposed by the Plaintiffs. Nothing says that the response won't result in criminal charges (unfortunately only a misdemeanor), but this is not an AG office investigation, its a discovery related to this pretrial motion.

      • Bah (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        this is not an AG office investigation, its a discovery related to this pretrial motion.

        This crap is entirely too complicated.

        Let's grab our pitchforks!

      • Re:This sounds hilarious eh I mean fun (Score:5, Interesting)

        by CFTM (513264) on Friday November 30 2007, @03:30PM (#21537457)
        I would expect more Universities to go to bat on this, particularly after one of the preeminate law professors at Harvard issued a statement to the Universities telling them that the RIAA was full-of-it and should be fought tooth and nail because there is no case...it's taken five years to get this far and it's probably going to take another five years to get the RIAA tombstoned but so be it. On a somewhat related note, Wired ran an interesting article on Doug Morris the CEO of Universal...

        Today, when he complains about how digital music created a completely new way of doing business, he actually sounds angry. "This business had been the same for 25 years," he says. "The hardest thing was to get something that somebody wanted to buy -- to make a product that anybody liked."
        Just because he's a CEO doesn't mean he's Smart [wired.com]
        Is anyone else really surprised, that with such a myopic attitude, that the recording industry has resorted to these sorts of tactics? It's like, come on man, businesses change...every business changes and any CEO worth his salt adjusts to those changes. Stupid assholes got caught with their pants down and now they want to change the laws of the land to take us back to 1997 when they had complete control.

        The funniest thing about it to me, is at 16 year old I could see where the music industry was going. My stance on Napster was always "Create a service where I can buy songs for 99 cents a pop, get the songs I want and not an entire CD and I'll pay for the material"; iTunes came along and I have not illegally obtained a piece of music since then. Here's to Apple getting 20% more market share because I want to see this guy fail big time.

        • Re:This sounds hilarious eh I mean fun (Score:5, Interesting)

          by jimlintott (317783) on Friday November 30 2007, @05:10PM (#21538671) Homepage
          Even funnier to consider in 1983, Frank Zappa said the traditional model was dead. Except for some technical details he almost precisely predicted the next model.

          http://www.brendastardom.com/arch.asp?ArchID=719 [brendastardom.com]

          They never did really listen to him.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Chris Burke (6130)
            They never did really listen to him.

            Well, in their defense, that's because in one second he's talking about a revolutionary new business model for music distribution, and in the next he's talking about some Nuclear-Powered Pansexual Roto-Plooker.

            Zappa was brilliant, but also very weird, and they probably had a hard time distinguishing when he was being which.

            Besides, they never got their prototype roto-plooker working.

  • It's about time!

  • Finally (Score:5, Interesting)

    by explosivejared (1186049) <.hagan.jared. .at. .gmail.com.> on Friday November 30 2007, @02:48PM (#21536909)
    I don't want to count the chickens before they are hatched, but I think we are beginning to see a real change in the direction of this thing. Recall EMI wanting to stop funding the RIAA. There is real success happening here. Only good can come from this scrutiny. For far too long now they've been trolling the courts and beating up on the little guy. So I say Hooray for Oregon's Attorney-General.

    (see comment about chickens before hatching)Although as I type this I recall the new restrictive copyright laws in Switzerland and Canada. This has tempered my optimism, but still I think things are finally changing.
    • The news that EMI maybe withdrawing their funding from the RIAA probably only means there's an RIAA2.0 waiting in the wings.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by johannesg (664142)
      I don't want to be all negative here, but this would be a good time to keep your eyes open for whatever new tactics the record labels will inevitably deploy. Experience has taught that whenever this much money is involved, the parties responsible do not so easily give up. Instead they appear to give up, only to come back in a worse guise.

      Real life is much like Dragonball Z, in that way...

        • Have you actually watched any Dragonball Z fights? I don't think our justice could afford to do that much more useless standing around yelling at each other than they already do.

  • About time!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 8127972 (73495) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:48PM (#21536911)
    One can only hope that:

    1. Other states copy this (not to mention the feds).
    2. The RIAA gets some sense and backs down.
    3. The public can enjoy their music without fear of being involved in a witch hunt.

    I'm likely dreaming, but one can dream can't they?

    • Re:About time!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rucs_hack (784150) on Friday November 30 2007, @03:36PM (#21537503)
      I don't think it's likely that any state is going to allow people to just download stuff for free without consequence. The issue here is whether the current methods being employed are illegal, denying defendants their rights through threats and suchlike.

      I think it's likely that file sharing as it exists will die a death in the not too distant future. I also think that's its the reason for most of this draconian crap to start with, we are, as it were, all to blame.

      Its very easy to point the finger at the RIAA and blame them. You can indeed get angry at them for their methods, but not their aim, which is to shut down illegal file sharing.
      Even if, and I doubt this bit, it is harming the recording industry, who gives a crap. What I'm thinking about is the billions that could be made, boosting the economy, by providing cheap streaming media content. That's what the RIAA should have been concentrating on. I'm astonished that they had all that money, all those lawyers, and they still donkeyed it from day one.

      Personally I long for the day when I can dial up the days entertainment on the net and have it delivered to me as and when I want, in the form I want, via a nice fat pipe to my house. I expect to pay for it too. I can't be alone in this thought.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jgoemat (565882)

        I don't think it's likely that any state is going to allow people to just download stuff for free without consequence.

        Why not? Nobody is being hurt. Copyright is actually the curtailing of the public's inherent rights. Government doesn't create rights, it curtails them. I see the need for copyright, the author should be the one to benefit financially from their work as a reward for creating it or incentive to create new works. However there is no harm in one who copies the work without financial rew

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ScrewMaster (602015)
            > Copyright is actually the curtailing of the public's inherent rights

            >> Is it?

            Yeah, pretty much. The whole point of copyright is to enrich the public domain, in fact Jefferson went so far as to call copyright "a loan from the public domain." So yes, copyright is very much a curtailing of the public's rights, with the express expectation that the public would be the ultimate beneficiary from that very explicit tradeoff. The current state of affairs is, I'm afraid, not remotely aligned with th

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by geekoid (135745)
        Minor nitpic. Distributing is the crime, not downloading.

  • Next in Congress... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sconeu (64226) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:48PM (#21536915) Homepage Journal
    A bill appointing the RIAA and its investigators as deputy federal marshals.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RobertM1968 (951074)

      Next in Congress

      A bill appointing the RIAA and its investigators as deputy federal marshals.

      Though sconeu's comment was humorous, keep in mind that the RIAA is trying to do the equivalent by getting the government to sanction/approve their actions or grant them the power to do such things. That effort is focusing on multiple methods of ensuring it, from (1) granting them immunity from prosecution for using such illegal tactics/abusing the court system and/or (2) making it legal for them to use such methods that would otherwise be considered circumventing due-process and abusing/railroading the l

  • Taken from the blog Recording Industry vs The People

    • Carlos Linares, upon whose declaration the subpoena was issued, had no first hand information whatsoever;
    • the RIAA's "data mining" investigation does not reveal how the files were obtained or whether they were ever shared with anyone;
    • the RIAA papers did not show that any infringing activity actually took place;
    • MediaSentry appears to have been conducting an investigation without an investigator's license, in violation of ORS 703.405 and ORS 703.993(s), which is a crime;
    • in Atlantic v. Andersen, based on the same theories and investigative techniques as those used here, they had been found by the Court to have stalled and resisted discovery, before abandoning their case rather than oppose Ms. Andersen's summary judgment motion;
    • the RIAA appears to have been abusing the judicial process by obtaining information through subpoenas which it then hands over to "collection firms" using them "to leverage payment of arbitrary sums of money, based on threats and evidence from the data mining";
    • the RIAA concealed a material fact from its original ex parte motion papers, which sought to create the aura of an emergency and the need for immediate ex parte action -- the fact that the University had informed the RIAA in July that the requested information had been gathered and would be preserved;
    • the RIAA lawyers falsely implied that the Attorney General's office had failed to "meet and confer" with them prior to making the motion to quash, even though the AG's office had in fact conferred with the RIAA's lawyers;
    • the deposition testimony of the RIAA's expert witness Doug Jacobson in UMG v. Lindor tends to indicate that the RIAA has already accessed private information on the computers of University of Oregon students; and
    • the RIAA has failed to provide an affidavit of the individual who actually conducted the 'investigation'.

    I think they have enough ammunition here to put the RIAA on the defensive. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, especially what counter-arguments the RIAA comes up with. This smells like the SCO all over again.

  • Turn about is fair play (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Etrias (1121031) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:53PM (#21536965)
    Looking very similar to the SCO case now. The RIAA through data mining has come up with "evidence" and the AG for Oregon is asking something reasonable of the court: how did you get this information and what was it? Oh, and does the company you got this from even have an investigating license? It's sickening to see the RIAA try to get their way by their dumpster diving discovery requests.

    They stalled on another case when they were asked to prove their methods. I believe the AG may have something there with investigator license which could turn into criminal charges for maybe both the RIAA and the company they hired to do their dirty work.
  • --the RIAA papers did not show that any infringing activity actually took place

    The RIAA has consistently done(or not done?) this. Yet they still win in the courts. Can anyone explain to me how they have convinced judges that a). they have accrued damages against their constituent companies without hard data and b). what links do they provide at all to the courts? IP's? MAC addresses?
    • High-priced bullshitters.

      Given a case that sounds legal, and enough money disparity between the two parties, the richer party can usually just call 'expert witnesses' all day long until people start to believe them. Since the other side can't afford their own witnesses, they will have trouble defending themselves.
      • Yes. We in the US have the best justice money can buy. And the great thing is, since you're not bribing judges, it's not corrupt.

      • Re:This is what has never made sense to me... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LrdDimwit (1133419) on Friday November 30 2007, @03:30PM (#21537449)
        More than that. The legal system in the US is set up so that even if you have an ironclad defense -- but don't bring it up at the right time -- then you waive that defense. This is just one of the reasons you do not represent yourself unless you have no choice at all. The justification is that otherwise, no judgement would ever be final because you could continually add new legal theories to the case. In fact, this is very similar to SCO's tactics (which were quite effective at causing huge delays).

        In this case, a number of promising avenues haven't been explored because nobody got good attorneys to bring them up. So the issue gets waived, the court accepts the RIAA's version because it was "undisputed". Recall the RIAA suits have been going on for a number of years, but it was only a couple months ago that this PI licensing issue was even mentioned -- because nobody ever did their homework before.

    • Re:This is what has never made sense to me... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Culture20 (968837) on Friday November 30 2007, @03:20PM (#21537307)
      The RIAA keep buying the pot. They go all in, and the little guy folds. They don't have to show their cards unless someone calls their bluff. Seems the AG is willing to do that with the state of Oregon as a backer.

  • Oh yea ! bring it !! (Score:5, Funny)

    by unity100 (970058) on Friday November 30 2007, @02:58PM (#21537031) Homepage Journal
    this is the kind of news i want to see after a long hard day's work ! - bullies getting whacked ! gives me the goosebumps. it doesnt feel like christmas, but it surely has a taste of it.

    and i mean it !
  • But seriously - if this does carry any water legally, what about all the defendants who have settled with the RIAA in past actions. Do I assume that all those defendants will be provided an opportunity to have their cases reexamined (due to the existence of evidence not available at the times of their trials)?

    I wonder if the member companies of the RIAA (Sony, BMG, etc.) could be held liable for RIAA's tactical abuse of the legal system?

  • Isn't this a form of wiretapping? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Weaselmancer (533834) on Friday November 30 2007, @03:57PM (#21537709)

    These techniques include the use of unlicensed investigators, the turning over of subpoenaed information to collection agencies, and the obtaining of personal information from computers.

    I've always wondered how these non-government agencies can get away with this kind of behavior without someone bringing them up on some kind of wiretapping/DMCA charge. Seems like the RIAA would be in violation of the CALEA [wikipedia.org] to me, as well as the DMCA - since they must circumvent access control to gain the kinds of information they claim to have. (And yes, I do count bluffing universities that they have to hand over IP addresses as circumvention - it's Social Engineering, and it's as old as hacking itself).

    They're not cops. Why do they have cop powers? I know for a fact if I do *any* of the crap they're doing, I'll go to jail.

    Why not them?

    • Social Engineering is older then hacking. When the first person was trying to hack fire from two sticks, I can bet you some guy was using social engineering to get laid. And it was old by then.

      And I agree. the people ordering these kinds of illegal behaviors, and the people carrying them out should all be arrested.

      OTOH, maybe all I have to do to protect my self from action if I were to break into the MPAA/RIAA computers is to incorporate a 'Security Investigation' company.
  • are counterclaims possible? reversed judgments? all the extorted and strong armed soccer moms: do they have grounds for a class action lawsuit against the recording industry's attack dogs as the legal tide turns against them?

  • At This Point In Oregon (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Friday November 30 2007, @04:28PM (#21538075)
    At this point in Oregon the RIAA has no case because:

    An IP address and a timestamp does not identify a particular computer. It might, at most, point to a cable modem, dsl modem, wireless router, none of which store or share files.

    Adding a screen snapshot of a list of files of unknown content doesn't improve in that identification.

    An IP address and a timestamp and a screen shot of file names doesn't identify an individual.

    None of the above shows that any copyrighted work was ever distributed illegally.

    Finding copyrighted music files on a hard drive is no evidence of illegal downloading.

    To recap, the RIAA has:

    No way to identify an individual.
    No way to identify a computer or tie it to an individual.
    No proof, or ability to get proof, of illegal downloading.
    No proof, or ability to get proof without having tapped internet connections of any distribution to anyone but their own investigators, who frankly don't count legally.
    No case at all to justify their invasion of a user's privacy, and the extortion attempts to follow as they insist through their lying mouths, "We have already secured the information necessary to win against you in court!

    The RIAA also has yet to prove in nearly all these cases that they are the current copyright holders of the very songs they seek to sue over, often presenting original copyright certificates in the names of companies that are no longer even in existence, and individual artists who have since died.

    Yes, the courts need to put a direct and firm end to all this nonsense.

    (Note to file sharers: Don't use your own personal, or nick, name as your KaZaA handle.)

    • "An IP address and a timestamp does not identify a particular computer. It might, at most, point to a cable modem, dsl modem, wireless router, none of which store or share files."
      It may, there are other factors to consider. Such as "Does the person at that IP own more then one computer? do they live with someone else who could have done it?" It does not say who was at that computer. Meaning it can be used for begin an investigation;however it doesn't mean they have any evidence to arrest/browbeat anybody.

      P

    • It would be nice if the it is found that the RIAA was involved in some serious legal wrong doing and it opened up the door to counter suits - especially by the folks who were bullied into settling.
      Do you smell that? *sniff* *sniff* Yup, definitely lawyers. Definitely smells like lawyers preparing class-action suit paperwork. Definitely.

      • Re:Opening the door to counter-suits? (Score:4, Funny)

        by ScrewMaster (602015) on Friday November 30 2007, @07:01PM (#21539721)
        Do you smell that? *sniff* *sniff* Yup, definitely lawyers. Definitely smells like lawyers preparing class-action suit paperwork. Definitely.

        Put on John William's Imperial March from Star Wars, close your eyes, and imagine rank after rank of Armani-clad, briefcase-wielding warriors descending upon RIAA headquarters. Would that not be a sight to behold?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.