Boston University Student Challenges RIAA 381
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.'"
his argument seems flawed (Score:3, Interesting)
A few questions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
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!!!"
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:4, Interesting)
Sera
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.
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:*Ding* (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I say... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just out of curiosity: if I leave my car unlocked on a publicly accessible street, do you feel I am "distributing" the contents?
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.)
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.
Re:Exhibits in Elektra v. Barker (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:I say... (Score:1, Interesting)
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html [com.com]
The case this student is making in the U.S. today has been precedent in Canada for over three years now.
Re:I say... (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole damn point of this debate is what the intent of the person with the share folder was. You can't give an analogy that essentially strips out all the intent of the student to let the files be copied freely, and then use that to prove that the intent didn't exist in the original situation. He didn't just "leave his window rolled down." He intentionally adhered to a setup that has no other real world function other than copyright infringement.
That setup should carry weight. Ever go tricker treating when you were a kid and someone left a bowl of candy out on their front step? I don't think they could take you to court if, after you took a piece, they jumped out from behind a set of bushes and claimed theft. The implication of what a bowl of candy on Halloween is intended for is too strong for them to claim reasonably that it was intended for something else, and that you should have known that.
So to the student, he can claim all he wants, but if his main point is "well, I never intended for it to be used THAT way!" then I don't think he's going to win. It's just too unreasonable to believe that he never intended for copyright infringement to occur, and then when it did, none of it is his fault. And say what you want about the RIAA, but the law then makes his actions illegal.
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a much better analogy because it shows that the owner of the flash card neither gave permission to copy the data nor did he have any way of recognizing that the data had been copied. Both of those points are well made within the motion to squash. Furthermore, he never invited anyone to copy the files. The RIAA would have to show that placing the files on an unsecured hard drive is the same as offering the files for other to copy.
However, the John Does could easily have had a reasonable expectation of security. Certainly it would seem that your files should be secure from sources outside of the school (i.e. people without school network login IDs). The RIAA agents were (apparently) neither students nor faculty of the school. Therefore the John Does would not expect them to have access to the files. Since the RIAA agents are the ONLY ones whom the RIAA can prove accessed the files and that access broke through a reasonable expectation of security then it would be quite a stretch to call placing those files in a directory "distribution".
The section in the motion to squash about how the John Does did not place the files on the hard drive for profit and how they did not offer the files to the RIAA agents may be a spurious argument. I don't think the RIAA has to show that the John Does intended to profit. I believe that they only have to prove that they were damaged. However, all of that hinges on the idea that the John Does placed the files with the intention of damaging the RIAA. While that may be true, the RIAA doesn't seem to have provided actual proof.
Now, if they were to prove that other students were copying the files within the school's network then they might have a better case. But as it stands I think they've lost this one.
IANAL
Re:his argument seems flawed (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's a crock, btw, but that's what happens when laws and courts can be bought and sold.