MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) says it will comply with a new RIAA subpoena demanding that it gives up the name of the person the association claims used school networks for file sharing - unless the person concerned can persuade school authorities that he or she wasn't responsible for the infringement, in which case MIT may again defy the record labels.

MIT ignored the first subpoena demanding it reveal the name of 'crazyface,' a network user who on June 27 was said to have used Kazaa to offer, "hundreds of copyrighted works to the world-at-large" saying it would try to invalidate RIAA subpoenas.

However, MIT said it would release the name of the user - if it actually had it - provided it received a subpoena signed by the clerk of the federal district court in Boston, and giving it enough time to respond.

Now it's received a second subpoena, this time filed through the federal district court in Boston, instead of Washington, DC.

"We have begun to file subpoenas in the local jurisdiction of Massachusetts," says an RIAA spokesman, quoted in MIT's The Tech. "What this means is that students at MIT and other local colleges who are illegally distributing substantial amounts of copyrighted music will now be held accountable for their actions."

MIT says it has identified and notified the owner of the computer alleged to have been illegally offering the recordings, based on logs provided by the Theta Delta Chi fraternity, where the computer was located, says The Tech news editor Keith Winstein.

He says MIT originally suspected a 'young lady' living at TDC over the summer as being the computer’s owner, "But now, based on examination of the logs provided by TDC, MIT has decided a different individual is the computer’s owner.

"MIT officials say they are not sure the owner is actually the person who was allegedly infringing the RIAA members’ copyrights by distributing recordings on KaZaA. 'Once you have identified a person and tied the person to the machine, there is the question, 'Was that individual in control of the machine at the time that the incident occurred?' the official said. 'Our hope is that the person is going to make an appearance at [Information Systems] or the senior counsel’s office so that we can have a conversation,' the official said.

"MIT has not yet heard from the person identified as the owner."

Winstein added that if the computer’s owner can convince MIT officials that he or she isn't responsible for the infringement, "it is not clear if MIT will release the owner’s name to the RIAA. The DMCA requires MIT to release 'information sufficient to identify the alleged infringer of the material described ... to the extent such information is available to the service provider'."

The RIAA, with its pettiness and meanspiritedness, is its own worst enemy. They are given chance after chance to back down, and,in their meanspirited, greedy thirst for blood, just keep pushing forward, are spelling their own demise.
To quote Mr. Spock from Star Trek
"...You may find that having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. This is not logical, but it is often true."
333333==>>>>>=================:>
~code

This is yet another reason why this sue em all campaign is going to destroy the RIAA, or as they put it:"The Music indusrty".

Are the last two lines of this article the largest loophole ever and the answer to all of our problems, or is it just me

Well, MIT has a point.

What if 'CrazyFace' was using a shared computer?

Many colleges do not issue individual user ids and passwords to their students for network access. While they do in fact issue personal email accounts, most if not all colleges have a standard account for network access.

Moreover, if this was in a fraternity house, and not a computer lab... The user may not have even had to put his or her name in a sign in log.

For all MIT knows, kazaa could've been left running in the background, completely unbeknowst to the user.

This is a definate loophole - especially for shared computers. How and where can culpability be determined, (in particular, on shared or public computers)?

Long story short, any evidence the RIAA 'thinks' they may have about this alleged infringement is both arbitrary and circumstancial.

Finally - a question: assuming it was a shared computer, isn't it possible that there was no one user who went by the handle 'crazyface'? To my knowledge, the user account for kazaa is the same for anyone who uses that pc, unless they change it...

Yes, I think its very probably that many ppl could of used the computer and kazaa would have the same s/n for all of them. Knowing the RIAA they would want to bring all of them to court. One person had to open the program, but thats hard to prove unless you have a witness. They could always claim they didn't know it was running, and say that someone else might have opened it, though that isn't entirely believable either.

The problem is this. They are going after the IP address more than the username (lots of people on Kazaa Lite have the same username). That IP will go back to one box, and they will stick it to the person who owns that computer if they can. What they will probably do is nail the "most likely", in other words, if everyone was out of town on that date but one, then they will assume it was the student who was most able to be controlling the box at the time. If the user and owner of the computer are not the same, they might sue both.
BOYCOTT 'EM OUT OF BUSINESS!
KEEP THE LETTERS TO CONGRESS FLOWING!
==>>>>================>

With regard to the definition of stealing, I went through several online legal dictionaries. Most did not even list the word "steal" or "stealing". LectricLaw Library was about the only one that I saw that had a definition of steal. It goes like this:
"STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required."

Don't see downloaders depriving the owner of use or benefit by copying the file to their drive.

The idea of theft and stealing, has, from the earliest codexes, been tied in with the notion that a person who steals from another, deprives that person of the use or benefit, and the law abhors forteiture and unjust enrichment.

Copyright infringement in which no money changes hand, no one tries to say the work was creating by them wrongly, just does NOT fall within the realm of theft, burglarly, conversion, or "stealing". And, under the No Electronic Theft Act, you really can't say that anyone who has files on their computer which have a retail value of under 1000 dollars, and who derive no financial advantage to sharing files, as being guilty of criminal copyright infringement, so we are left with civil infringement only, and this under a piece of legislation copying from the WIPO new world order .
=>>>=============}>
~code

http://www.duhaime.org/Law_museum/hist.htm

To my knowledge, individuals can't be held accountable for any illegal actions that another may take using the individuals property.

So, it seems to me that the RIAA has to prove the following to successfully sue someone:

1) Prove that the alleged files were in fact being shared. (Which they may or may not have done, depending on if they actually downloaded the files or not)

2) Get the IP address of the computer sharing the files.

3) Find out who the computer belonged to, that had that IP address at that time.

4) Prove that the owner of that computer was in fact the one operating it at that time, or minimumly, that that user is solely responsible for that machine.

5) Successfully argue that sharing files on Kazaa constutes willful infringement.

Now, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that the RIAA actually downloaded the files to verify that they are copyrighted material (simply looking at a filename isn't enough, IMO) which covers step 1. It's also easy enough to get to step 2, and they're currently on step 3 with the subpoenas.

I think step 4 represents a hurdle for them though. Take for example my network. I have three roommates, collectively we have over 8 computers, all behind a router. So to the rest of the internet, all of those 8 computers have the same IP. Now say the RIAA decided to target me. They could get as far as getting my name from my ISP, but it's *impossible* to determine which computer was *actually* sharing the files, it could be any of the 8, which could be owned by any of 4 people. So, they'd probably attempt to sue the person who's name the account was under. All you have to do is say that your computer was not sharing any files that day, it was most likely one of your roommates, and you had no knowledge of it. The RIAA's case vanishes.

Or for another example, a family has a computer in the living room. A friend comes on over, fires up Kazaa, downloads some tunes, burns a cd, and leaves. Can the family be held liable for the actions of that friend? I don't think so.

And then, even if they can prove that the person they were suing was responsible for the computer sharing the files at the time the files were being shared (doubtful) then they still have to make their case that simply having these files in a shared directory on Kazaa is a willful infringement of copyright.

Of course, I know nothing of how the legal system works, so I might be completely wrong. However, if I am wrong and we're responsible for what others do on our computers 24/7, then I'm packing my bags and moving to canada.

Your wrong, you are responsible what what others do with your internet connection. Its a condition of your contract with the ISP.

Codewarrior: Doesn't the NET act also specify that transmitting copyrighted content in the expectation of recieveing copyrighted content in return is legally equivilent to transmitting it for financial profit?

A nice big loophole would be if the ISP was unable to determine who was using the infringeing IP address at the time of the infringement. This would seriously inconvenience the RIAA. But its not so simple. For a start ISPs and universities all keep those logs, at least for billing and althrough I am not sure they may be required for a limited period by law. If they are not required by law, I suspect a little lobbying involveing warnings about terrorists using the internet to arrange the next plane attack with the FBI and CIA unable to trace them would very quickly weaken what privacy users have now. The RIAA might struggle to pass that one, but the MPAA could do it. If the MPAA did, noone would hear until it was passed. The MPAA is good at stealth lobbying.

Those routers make it possible to trace the infringement only to a small group of people. Not much good. Two problems. The first, the ISP or university is likely to just cut off all those users if the RIAA threatens expensive legal action. The second, a forensic check of the PCs for infringeing material would soon settle that one. If the users dont cooperate they can get in legal trouble for "withholding evidence", and they would look guilty anyway.

Crazyface certinly cannot convince anyone that infringement did not take place. The best they can hope for would be to show it was non-profit and not willful infringement.

actually, you did a fine job in analysis. The problem comes because there are so many TYPES of infringement which have been developed. There is direct infringement in which one knowingly and willfully violates copyright by making an unauthorized copy of copyrighted files. Then, there is vicarious and contributory infringement.
Contributory infringement and vicarious liability are court-created theories (i.e., not specified in the Copyright Act) designed to hold a party liable for its participation in the unlawful copying done by another.

The standard definition for contributory copyright infringement is when the defendant, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another."
Again, this needs some awareness on the part of the party (i.e. computer owner) allowing the infringement to occur. In other words, the plaintiff must not only show ownership of a valid copyright and unlawful copying (i.e., copyright infringement), but must show that the defendant 1) had knowledge of the infringing activity and 2) materially contributed to the infringing conduct.

Vicarious liability is another means of holding someone liable for copyright infringement even when that person or party is not the one who did the infringing. In order to find a defendant liable under the theory of vicarious liability for the actions of an infringer, it must be shown that the defendant 1) has the right and ability to control the infringer's acts, and 2) receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement. OK...as you will see, there is a financial aspect to the vicarious infringement.
Unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. However, courts have determined that the combination of the right and ability to control the infringer's acts and the receipt of a direct financial benefit from the infringement suffices to hold a defendant vicariously liable for copyright infringement, even if the defendant didn't know of the particular infringement.

Now, let's say there was someone who owned a computer, and had a friend named Harry Palms. Harry regularly visits the owner, doesn't have a computer of his own, and pays the owner 5 bucks to let him use his computer for an hour. The owner comes in one day and Harry is downloading copyrighted music files. The owner tells him, that's illegal Harry, please don't do that. Harry tells him that he doesn't care, and for the owner not to worry. Not wishing to push the issue and lose the 5 bucks, the owner continues to let Harry come and download music and burn it to a disk. Then, the RIAA gets the IP and sues. The computer owner could be sued under the vicarious infringement even if the particular day the act occurred, he or she wasn't even in town. He or she could be sued even if they never knew that Harry was downloading, because Harry was giving them money for using the computer and thus, the computer owner got financial reward and "enabled" the infringemenet.

Now, let's say Harry came over to the computer owner's house. He never paid the owner to use the computer. The owner never even knew Harry downloaded music. The owner has stepped out for a couple of hours and left Harry in the house. Harry jumps online, downloads a bunch of songs and burns them to a disk without the owner's knowledge or agreement. The RIAA sees the files in a shared folder, gets the IP and goes after the owner. If the owner can prove the facts about Harry using the computer without their knowledge, then the owner is probably off the hook.

It comes down to this.
Are you aware people are using your equipment for copyright infringement?
Do you get rewarded in any way by those using your computer to infringe?

If the answer is yes, you can be held liable under some of these theories, if not, you're probably cool!
~code

At up to $150,000 per song, they damn well better be 100% sure who they are sueing. It's apparent that these RIAA Jackasses don't care whether they are right or wrong, they just want more money. If your going to wreck somebodies life at least get right person.

It's amazing how individual people like Code, Ifeelfree, and many other regular posters have a better grasp of the Law and what needs to be fixed than a bunch of Jackasses that went to law school.

Hey Code....Send them the definition of Steal since they have no clue what it means.

Very correct goldenpi, and that is an astute observation and problematic part of this whole mess.

If you had, say a direct one to one ratio upload/download arrangement, where you are exchanging say, songs from the Beatles for 50 Cent, then,
you would be getting financial gain in the form of copyrighted material.
See below:
[*2] SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.

(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated paragraph relating to the term 'display', the following new paragraph:

"The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'.

demon...does no good. They KNOW this is not stealing, if it is, why aren't there 1000 arrest warrants issued for theft? They also know it is not piracy, which also is a serious crime. In fact, the crime of piracy, according to Title 18 of the USC criminal code, is punishable by life imprisonment.

See below:
CITE 18 USC Sec. 1652 01/26/98
EXPCITE TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
"PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 81 - PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING
TEXT
Sec. 1652. Citizens as pirates
Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, commits any murder
or robbery, or any act of hostility against the United States, or
against any citizen thereof, on the high seas, under color of any
commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretense of
authority from any person, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for
life."

The piracy and stealing rhetoric is just more lies and manipulation by these jerks.

Demon, we will win my friend!
And thanks for the kind works...
~code

See, here's the obvious problem with Cary-Sue's allegations about theft and "stealing". If the RIAA was affirmatively aware of over 1000 cases of theft or as they so ignorantly put it "stealing", then, isn't it their corporate and civic duty to turn their evidence over, or at least inform the law enforcement authorities and let them handle it? The problem(s) which prevent them from doing it that way are:
1) They KNOW it is not legally theft or "stealing", and thus, they would be charged with making a false report.
2) Even if there WERE actual cases of theft, the RIAA collected evidence in an improper way, they violated about 75 % of all user agreements and interefered with the function of a private network (actionable under title 18, unauthorized access to stored electronic communications, since they fraudulently misrepresented themselves as human users when they were robot programs, and they know that law enforcement would never have been able legally (without using the Patriot Act) to violate people's rights in the manner the RIAA has.
So, if you have over 1000 acts of theft and "stealing" and "piracy", why aren't you reporting all this to law enforcement ?
and so it goes...

"Stealing or Piracy" are only terms used by the RIAA and counsel to draw attention and support for themselves and make downloaders look like "criminals". Fact is , as you stated, if theft were actually being committed then arrests would have been made. No law has been broken, as of yet. Keep in mind , they are suing for , "financial damages". It's a matter of opinion.

And they are desperately trying to influence the opinion of congress , which is why we to need to continue sending out 'letters to the leaders'!

And they are desperately trying to influence the opinion of congress , which is why we to need to continue sending out 'letters to the leaders'!

Courts can rule for or against laws if cases are proven to justify doing so.

here here!!! agreed and seconded~
~code

has anyone been to http://www.petitiononline.com/riaawar/petition.html yet? it's a petition against the RIAA that's about a year old...

I won't sign that petition because I don't think it's that well written and it has an antagonistic tone to it that is counterproductive. Also, there's no indication of how this petition will be used. Finally, who's this Derek Jones? He could work for the RIAA for all I know.

I have been to that site and even signed the petition , however I don't think that it posses any merit to really be of any benefit. Wish it were. Who knows? I think that's why I signed. Who Knows ?

IFeelFree :

Good Point.

What I meant by "loophole" was the following:

what if a college has a system of automatically assigned IP's, and doesn't keep permanent logs?
So if they get a subpoena, it's "oops, tough luck, dunno who it is".

I am sure the DMCA is not that specific about the logs ISP's are required to keep.

then again, mathematical solutions are always more reliable than legal ones.

Hey Code Warrior:

Nah, it's not stealing. It's not theft. Who are you kidding?

Because we're not depriving the owner of his/her possessions, then it's not stealing?

I guess there's no such thing as identity theft?

Slim

res ipsa loquitor.
Look up the laws.
Read what constitutes theft by federal law.
Stealing is a lay term, it is not a legal charge.
Identity theft is theft in the sense that they have appropriated your identity and are using it for their own ends. It stems from fraud and is usually charged under fraud statutes.

lol..the shills are back trying to say everyone is a thief...this shows the RIAA is really getting desperate~

OHHH...now I get it, it's clear now, like the scales have fallen off my eyes, "ALL COPYING IS THEFT"..Oh this is so wonderful now, I see the truth, what a shining and pervasive veracity our new visitor has bestowed on us, but now, we need to extrapolate this new truth to everyday life.
So, when you go somewhere and they need to make a copy of your driver's license, scream at the top of your lungs.."Thief, thief" and run like the wind down the street and tell the gestapo, er, police, that someone was trying to steal your driver's license. And when you go to the driver's license place to renew your license and they take your thumbprint, THAT'S A COPY...and start screaming at the driver's license bureau.."You've stolen my thumb, you've stolen my thumb".
And, should any thieving bastard take your picture...clue here, THAT'S A COPY...You've just had your face stolen! Run, get the police and tell them your face has been stolen. But there's more, the rabbit hole goes far deeper than we realized. They have institutionalized this kind of theft at libraries, law offices, Kinkos, with their little theft machines that are euphemistcally called "copiers", those little boxes of iniquity. And puddles, puddles can reflect your face, like mirrors, so it's like a copy...more face thieving...OH BROTHER'S AND SISTERS, WERE IT NOT FOR OUR ENLIGHTENED NEW VISITOR, WE WOULD NOT SEE THIS SCHEME OF COPY/THIEVERY.

But, this realization brings changes in the way we do things. Since copying is literally theft...we can never use the CTRL + C keystokes together, and since cut copies in a way too, NO Ctrl + X at any time. And, ahhhh, it gets SOOOOO fiendish...if you draw a picture, and take another piece of paper, and "COPY" it, you have stolen your own picture from yourself. Goodness gracious, does this fiendish infinite regression of horror never end???? And, look at all the law books, statutes, acts, webpage lists of US Codes that immediately, and I mean IMMEDIATELY MUST BE REVISED, so that everyone can then be made aware of this copy/theft horror that has gone unnoticed like a thief in the night. And in the Bible, when we are told to be like Jesus, that's COPYING...we would be stealing Jesus' identity from him, see we learned from our visitor the new word "identity theft", more of this copy horror. And, unfortunately, the language must be updated, no more "carbon cooy", no sirreeee, now it's "Carbon THEFT". All Xerox machines shall be known now and forever more as "theft machines". And there is no "COPYRIGHT", since copying is theft, it would be "COPYWRONG" or for the more simplistic "COPYBAD", "FIREGOOD".
Also, twins, need I say more on this issue? So, we have got our jobs laid out for us. No more of this fighting for civil rights, we are now, owing to the instruction we have had from our new visitor, part of the "Fight Copying" squad. I would send each of you a copy of this note, but YIKES, it would be theft!
{and a hush falls on the room as they ponder the horror and evil that copying spreads, and the misery it leaves in its wake).
~code (Fighter Against the Evil Copy Monster)

OHHH...now I get it, it's clear now, like the scales have fallen off my eyes, "ALL COPYING IS THEFT"..Oh this is so wonderful now, I see the truth, what a shining and pervasive veracity our new visitor has bestowed on us, but now, we need to extrapolate this new truth to everyday life.
So, when you go somewhere and they need to make a copy of your driver's license, scream at the top of your lungs.."Thief, thief" and run like the wind down the street and tell the gestapo, er, police, that someone was trying to steal your driver's license. And when you go to the driver's license place to renew your license and they take your thumbprint, THAT'S A COPY...and start screaming at the driver's license bureau.."You've stolen my thumb, you've stolen my thumb".
And, should any thieving bastard take your picture...clue here, THAT'S A COPY...You've just had your face stolen! Run, get the police and tell them your face has been stolen. But there's more, the rabbit hole goes far deeper than we realized. They have institutionalized this kind of theft at libraries, law offices, Kinkos, with their little theft machines that are euphemistcally called "copiers", those little boxes of iniquity. And puddles, puddles can reflect your face, like mirrors, so it's like a copy...more face thieving...OH BROTHER'S AND SISTERS, WERE IT NOT FOR OUR ENLIGHTENED NEW VISITOR, WE WOULD NOT SEE THIS SCHEME OF COPY/THIEVERY.

But, this realization brings changes in the way we do things. Since copying is literally theft...we can never use the CTRL + C keystokes together, and since cut copies in a way too, NO Ctrl + X at any time. And, ahhhh, it gets SOOOOO fiendish...if you draw a picture, and take another piece of paper, and "COPY" it, you have stolen your own picture from yourself. Goodness gracious, does this fiendish infinite regression of horror never end???? And, look at all the law books, statutes, acts, webpage lists of US Codes that immediately, and I mean IMMEDIATELY MUST BE REVISED, so that everyone can then be made aware of this copy/theft horror that has gone unnoticed like a thief in the night. And in the Bible, when we are told to be like Jesus, that's COPYING...we would be stealing Jesus' identity from him, see we learned from our visitor the new word "identity theft", more of this copy horror. And, unfortunately, the language must be updated, no more "carbon cooy", no sirreeee, now it's "Carbon THEFT". All Xerox machines shall be known now and forever more as "theft machines". And there is no "COPYRIGHT", since copying is theft, it would be "COPYWRONG" or for the more simplistic "COPYBAD", "FIREGOOD".
Also, twins, need I say more on this issue? So, we have got our jobs laid out for us. No more of this fighting for civil rights, we are now, owing to the instruction we have had from our new visitor, part of the "Fight Copying" squad. I would send each of you a copy of this note, but YIKES, it would be theft!
{and a hush falls on the room as they ponder the horror and evil that copying spreads, and the misery it leaves in its wake).
~code (Fighter Against the Evil Copy Monster)

As you shall see, the RIAA's greatest weapon is fear -- not the ability to actually prosecute.

They simply cannot prove much of anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

How about this: It's not stealing because recent studies, such as the one by market research firm Music Programming Ltd, shows that file sharers buy more CDs. It could be argued that it's free advertising for the record companies.

http://www.netimperative.com/cmn/viewdoc.jsp?cat=all&ct=news&docid=BEP1_News_0000054857

Hey Code, you know-it-all:

Who posted "ALL COPYING IS THEFT"?

Any shred of evidence at all that I am a shill from the RIAA?

You've got a handful of posters on here who are only interested in thievery. Keep filling their heads with your bullshit.

Here comes a 20-page response.

Slim

Slim

I read this on www.gamefaqs.com and wonder if it could provide another very interesting loop hole.

If you are not a registered message board user, only your IP address will be checked. Your IP address is most likely dynamically handed out whenever you log in to your ISP (such as AOL or Earthlink), and many different people can end up using the same IP address over the course of a day. Unfortunately, if you are not a registered message board user, this could prevent you from voting in the poll, especially if you use one of the more popular nationwide ISPs (such as AOL or Earthlink) or if you are surfing from behind a proxy server (most businesses and some content-filtering ISPs use these).

Slim,

Take a hike. Hike on over to www.fairforshare.com and you'll find a couple of hundred songs that have been authorized by the artists for filesharing.

It's promotion, you moron. The RIAA has locked the independent musicians out of the market and the main reason they are fighting P2P so hard is because we don't need their sorry asses any more to reach the consumer.

That's what they're trying to stop. We say the RIAA cvan take all of their music and shove it up their vulture asses because we don't even want to listen to it.

The cause of dropping sales is that the RIAA is treating the consumers like shit, accusing them of being theives and charging $18 for a CD that costs a fraction of what it used to cost to produce vinyl records.

Bring on your 20-page response dumbass and I'll write 60 pages ripping it apart line by line.

CodeWarrior:

This guy sounds like an angry provocateur. I wouldn't bother about him.

It would be hard to prove that one single person was the criminal. Most colleges run a dhcp network. they run that type of network so they dont have to tell each student which static ip to use. Every time your comp. shuts down and restarts it will grab the first availible ip address from the network computer. So the ip addresses are always changing. In this case there will be too much reasonable doubt.

Also ,,,,,,SlimChance,,, Go Piss In The Wind

code, LMAO

Wow, such harsh words from such feeble minds.

CALM DOWN EVERYBODY.

Anger gets us nowhere; if someone wants to provide a dissenting opinion, so be it. But for Christ's sake, ad homonyms by our side makes us seem weak. Let the other guy sound like a jealous moron.

They only use offensive language because they know they're losing the war.

And by feeble minds I mean those who believe the RIAA's "theft" language.

Funny stuff code. Whoops, I copied your name. I guess I'm a thief. You forgot to mention copying out of the dictionary. If we lived under the RIAA rules, Merriam-Webster would sue us everytime we wrote a letter/email. Or even worse, everytime we spoke. This SlimChance is a quack. Identity Theft? Who is this guy?!? SlimChance, I have a message for Cary "Sue 'Em All" Sherman; tell him to

"quit sending his little cronies to do his dirty work. Bring it on. I have nothing to lose. The American government, which you have been paying off, has limited the workforce in this country. The majority of the people in this country are flat out broke. Take me to court, it will be a win-win situation for me. Either way, I will file a counter suit for defamation of character and emotional trauma. You call me a pirate and that is slander."

I once found it humorous to watch the RIAA act like a fish out of water, gasping for breath. Now it is boring and tiresome. I am hoping some of these suits actually go to court. Give me something new to laugh at.

Heh........code, remember when some jackass tried to sue John Fogerty for plaigarizing himself? He lost, of course, but it goes to show how far people will go to make a buck.

Now that you mention it, copy and paste on your computer is an even MORE serious theft: whatever you copy and paste is a direct, bit for bit, byte for byte copy!

What I'm hoping for is something like this....we as consumers raise a huge stink, fight the legal battles if need be (I'm already broke and unemployed, what does the RIAA think they'll get from me?), and let the music world know we're not going to take being sued for not buying garbage. The artists will finally stand up and start yelling (as I have), and go on strike. We have a union, you know. Maybe y'all should write to them as well. Look for your local AEA or Musician's Union office...if you can't find it online, call a local entertainment agency, they'll be able to give you the address and phone number.

We're going balls to the wall on Congress, it's time we start hitting the musicians who support the RIAA, and speaking directly to the artists who don't. The AEA also represents the other areas of music production, including producers, stage hands, tour coordinators, and on down the line. If you see a live show from a major act, you can bet everybody involved with it is AEA Union.

Just a thought.

hey, what do you call a guitar player without a girlfriend?





Homeless.

oh, and I'm not sure on the protocol for this, but I run a website for musicians. It's primarily geared toward digital production, but since I'm a live sound guy and guitar/bass player, I touch on that as well. You're welcome to visit, and post comments there. Had a crash, and managed to lose almost everything in the restore....go figure.

www.audioeditplus.com

Slim, you've obviously got an impacted hemmorhoid or something. You've obviously never heard of me, and I can say honestly it's because I refused to sign an RIAA endorsed contract that would have stripped me of most of my creative rights, as well as most of my money. Too bad for you, I guess.

Get a clue. Musicians are tired of them too.

gd, I have to disagree, respectfully. The cause of dropping sales is a combination of the crap they're pushing on us, coupled with a struggling economy. Most people can't afford to buy cd's the way they used to....I know I used to buy 10 at a time, every few weeks. Now I'm lucky if I can buy one a month, if I can find one that isn't Christina, Britney, or some BackDoor Boys clone.

I'd say nobody would pay good money for crap, but I hear the manure market is booming in the Midwest.

'Nuff said.

HAHAHA good one Heffie!!! I agree also

thanks for the info on your site i'll be there to make a post aganist the RIAA!

oops i spoke to soon on the upper post
loks like there was a troll here

CodeWarrior: In your sarcasm you missed the most insidious of copy/theft: self-propagation, thought (memory) and hells bells my chromosomes are paired! All life must be extinguished less we be consumed by nature's evil plan!

Getting back to the issue, my ISP is a cable service which employs a dhcp network. I suppose the ISP could be logging which users log into which IPs, but that must be one hell of a big log file. My firewall has anti-IP spoofing (which randomizes the TCP sequence] - I'm not sure if that helps in regards to file sharing or not. I'd like to think it does...

How does this loophole play out in the family siduation? For instance: working parent signs up for net access. Spouse and kids (maybe the family pets too!) share the connection. When the RIAA comes knockin' who gets the blame? So far, it's always played out that the parents blame the kids..and the RIAA wins. However, what if parents got wise and took the fifth or just didn't specify who did what (or didn't know for sure)? Who would be held responsible - the working parent or the whole family (pets included) ?

[About pets and pcs: I have a novelty mouse (looks like a mouse) and my cat seems to enjoy using it. On more than a few occations she's launched programs, browsed the web, and downloaded files. Maybe I should get her her own pc :-]

Tinker

Which is the point. The case among a jury with a 11 year old charged for filesharing and his dad at the brink of bankruptcy is unconscienable.

Likely the RIAA will be advised by their counsel to target older upperclass teens as the whipping boy which may be more appealing to an arbiter to favor the assholes.

No good in the family situation, because the person or people who signed (or clicked-through) the contract with the ISP for the service are responsible.

Ive never heard of that anti-ip spoofing trick, but it wont work. There are only two ways to establish an anonymous TCP connection. Either proxy through another system or spoof your IP address. The second works only if your logicially very close to the destination network and if your ISP hasn't put a finter in to check for strange traffic like that, and even then it requires so much luck its rarely tried and never succeds. Theres also a possibility of disrupting a third network somewhere. UDP is marginially easier, thats easy providing your ISP hasn't explicitly disabled it. Most have.

Here's a thought...

I go to a Cinnamonster's website and pay for a copywrited recipe for Cinnamonster cinnamon rolls. I use the recipe and make lots and lots of cinnamon rolls. I take the rolls and give them to all my friends, family, bums, I know. So can cinnamonster sue me for making copies of their cinnamon rolls and sharing, not selling, my cinnamon rolls? Could they argue that I'm ruining their business? I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer. Then why can the RIAA? Someone had to have paid for the CD somewhere along the line and shared it with all their friends on kazaa.

I get your drift BigKahunah, but cinnamonster might not have lobbied the congress to use the DMCA ,They only supplied the sticky bunns & coffee in the lobby! Their pockets are not quite as big either.

This is OT, but since we have some great musicians on board, thought I would get some input. Was looking at a couple of elec. guitars, a BC Rich black, Bronze series (perhaps a Warlock) and an Ibanez RG 220 B (also black)...any thoughts on which one is better. I played both, and they are fairly close in sound.
Any input appreciated.
~code
Can get either one for about 200

code...
Go with the BC Rich. I feel that most of their guitars are of better build and sound better. I am a fender man myself. Not the Japanese or Mexican imports either. Although the newer Mexican imports sound fairly good. I like older Pre-cbs fender Jaguars and Mustangs. I ran across a pre-cbs fender mustang awhile back. It had Seymour Duncan hotrails in it and it sounded great. Maybe we should get all the musicians together and arrange a free concert right in front of RIAA Headquarters. Then arrange for another in front of congress. Call it the "Boycott tour."

Code and everyone else, think about this and let me hear what you and others have to say:

The DMCA seems to have completely circumvented the 4th amendment - the right to privacy and the laws governing search and seisure (exuse my spelling mistakes as I type this out).

With the way our computers are being "searched", it would be interesting to find out what methods the RIAA is using to "find" the alleged "illegal" copyrighted material. Seeing that there are many programs out there that use "shared computing resources" - could a person who puts their own copied music in a "shared folder" and wants to make sure that that information accessable to them in another location, be actually breaking the law in doing so? Most computer users are not technically savvy to know how to set up secure access from one machine to another which could be in the next room, thus enabling the whole machine open to the internet without it being a complete fault of their own. Are users just as responsible for their own ignorance or their lack of understanding or knowledge of computer systems as much as people who are in the know?

It would seem as if the RIAA would have to actually prove that malicious intent was on the minds of those people they are going after. What the general media doesn't seem to realise is thet the ownus to prove theft/stealing/whatever is up to the RIAA - not on the alleged infringer; that willful crimminal intent was present at the time of the alleged infringement. Basing a case, soley on an IP, is circumstantial at best, and even if a forensic analysis of a computer is requested, that would mean the RIAA would have to disclose how it sought out the material in question, which I'm sure they would not want to do (although in some high profile cases, such information had been disclosed under strict judicial seal). If it is proven that this is a civil matter and not a criminal one, it would be very hard for the RIAA to get a warrant to be issued to "search" a person's computer if malicious intent is not proven in the very beginning. Just so everyone knows, an IP does not prove anything in either case, unless there was dubious "monitoring" which would lend itself to another whole can of worms which could nullify the RIAA's case in all aspects.

What I find most disturbing, and I should read the DMCA in whole to possibly understand if this can be the case, is how a non-crimminal enforcement special interest group has the broad authority to access a private citizen's computer, unbeknownst to them, to obtain information, without just cause, to search for possible copyrighted works, whether such information was placed there by the citizen on his/her own volition or downloaded from the internet.
One must also realise that running Kazaa, Morpheous, Limewire, etc., isnt solely for the purpose of downloading MP3's, movies, software or other illegal gains. As with the Indie labels and the musicians who are in their employ, where would those artists be without being able to freely distrubute their works in a medium such as the internet with said programs?

As a musician who has had a copyrighted work published before, I am more than willing to evolve with the times. And if I were to produce any more musical works for my peers to listen to or even share with others, I would make sure that the music would be distrubuted in MY best interest, not in the interest of some large corporation where the _BOTTOM LINE_ is what all that seems to counts in this day and age. What I would to see is these large companies evolve and embrace technology to their advantage, not go after college kids who are already poor to begin with.

Just my 2 rambling cents.

I'd go with the BC Rich myself, too. The Ibanex isn't quite as good a guitar. Pick the one that fits your hands better....I think the Ibanez has a flatter fretboard, the Rich is rounder, slightly thicker neck. I play Steinbergers myself, I hated having the neck move on regular guitars every time I took one out of a cold car. That, and they just look cool.

SonOfLiberity......i'm not a musician, but I posted that same comment a few days ago. I think it would be a great idea. you could call it AMFF (American Music Freedom Fest) taking donations to FREE THE MUSIC! you could rally the music lovers and artist! GREAT IDEA!

SonOfLiberty and heffie, much thanks for the input. Seems like a consensus for the BC Rich. I thought it kinda held a clearer tone and was louder played on the same amp and same amount of play on the strings, but had read a bad review on a similar model. Money's tight, but am tired of just playing my Ovation elec-acoustic, and my wife is pretty cool about my spending. OK...cool then. I knew you guys would have great input.
Have a great one!
PS...Great idea about the Freedom Fest..I love the idea of musicians being seem publically against the RIAA rats!
~code

Foopah: Some great questions,and I'll try to give my input. First off, the DMCA is the culprit in all this, and the DMCA is a Title 17 amendmenet that implements the WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization copyright law. The WIPO document is HORRIBLE, and it appears to be intent on trying to control as much of what goes on both in the internet, and on your computer as possible. The DMCA was passed and signed into law in 1998, over the objections in many groups. Now, you very astutely point out the 4th Amendment. The problem is that the Amendments are bars against government actions against you, not what some private bunch does. The DMCA allows latitude to the minions of evil, which law enforcement could only dream up (without them resorting to the Patriot Act). The Patriot Act and the DMCA do have some parallels in that they allow the kinds of violation of personal liberties and legal rights, that usually, could never occur without Martial law being declared. The problem here is that usually, one has to worry about the government violating your rights. It hasn't generally been considered that businesses might take the bizarre course of attacking their customers, or just plain, Joe Average in large numbers. The RIAA and DirecTV, I think are about the only ones this nuts (to put things in perspective, DirectTV has filed 9000 lawsuits against people they claim stole their tv signal, and sent strongarm letters to another 100,000). But, I think ultimately, we are going to have to have the courts look at whether our individual rights are only valid if the government tries to violate them. If we can just get the courts to say, NO ONE has the ability to violate your constitutional rights, then, there is a chance to get this to the Supreme Court. Once there, there is the Marbury v. Madison precedent that says that any law, statute, or act that conflicts or infringes with the constitution (which includes our rights) is invalid and can be ruled thusly. Certainly, the DMCA circumvents normal subpoena procedures and enables gross violations of the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Fourth Amendment. I think eventually, this issue is going to be raised somehow and may hold us some hope, because I don't think (hope I'm wrong) that the people on Capitol Hill, are going to voluntarily, and without extreme pressure from the electorate, repeal the DMCA, because it is part of their overall plan of establishing control.

Now, as to the other stuff, the various toadies (hired tech companies) are releasing robot programs, not that much unlike the spiders and bots release on the web to search pages and index content. They are released onto P2P networks, and can look for files, and index the shared folders of users. I think that they are programmed to look for certain artists/songs, and to report the IP address, user name, and to record what is offered. I also believe they are actually downloading the files for evidence that it was in fact a copyright tune, and not a fake file. Then, a human sits down with these lists and decides what to turn over to the RIAA for action.

Now, for infringement, there is direct infringement, where you knowlingly, make files available for folks to download. There doesn't have to be any malicious intent. Often, people quote that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" , which I have always thought was ridiculous, because if you don't know something is verboten, how are you going to know not to do it? Direct infringement would also be knowingly downloading a copyrighted file.
The other two infringements, contributory and vicarious, really don't come into play with a first party case, as they involve someone who is enabling the infringement to occur.
The RIAA is going to come from this perspective. If you make copyrighted files available in your shared folder, even if you thought that you disabled sharing, that you are guilty, plain and simple. With Kazaa, they are going to claim that you could see the activity at the bottom that showed files were being uploaded from your computer and you should of closed Kazaa. Of course, since there is no need for active participation from an uploader, people could have gone to the bathroom, or left their program on, had programs download, and then, since the machine was on and they were not there, uploads could happen in their absence. The RIAA lawyers are going to assume people are lying about not knowing, and are going to say that given the warnings, that people should have taken extraordinary measures to disable sharing. They will probably point that they told people to do this, and even the EFF had instructions about how NOT to get sued.

What I find interesting is that the NET act (no electronic theft)
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/hr2265.html
which is the criminal side version of some of the DMCA, in their act, just proof that you uploaded or downloaded copyrighted material is not enough to prove wrongdoing "For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.

But, of course proving something in a criminal case is to a different standard than in a civil case (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to just a "preponderance" , or tipping of the scales ever so slight, in favor of the plaintiff).

You have to understand that Cary-Sue is a copyright attorney, and you can bet that all their lawyers have been brainstorming this issue for months in order to try to get slam dunks. They sat down at a big conference table, and threw back and forth each possible defense (e.g. I didn't know it was illegal, I thought I had blocked sharing, I had a copy of the CD, I thought it was ok just to download a FEW songs, and like sharks circling in a feeding frenzy in a pool of chum, they have already worked out how to cross examine the hell out of these poor plaintiffs). It was admitted in an LA article that the lawyers had, before the June 26 start of collecting evidence, that the lawyers for the RIAA had already found the judges who would be most sympathetic to them and the best jurisdictions to file cases in. That's pretty calculated. They also advised the RIAA not to go after poor people, or people with just a few files. They told them to go after middle and upper middle income folks with hundreds or thousands of files they were offering. But, the RIAA didn't want this info out,because they wanted to scare anyone and everyone, that up or downloading one song might target you. Just imagines the probabilities. Say at the time there were 4 million people on Kazaa. Say at the time, that only half of them were sharing, or even a fourth, that would make any person's chances (if it were random) about 1 in a million or 1 in two million of getting nailed (without talking about the criteria of the specific artists and songs one was offering). They had to make sure that they were going after RIAA copyrighted material. Now, if you go to RIAA radar, you find that even with one group with several albums, some will be RIAA and some are not, so they had to make sure to target not only RIAA artists, but albums that were copyrighted by RIAA labels. So, unfortunately, I think they have an easier case than you think. But, you are 100 % right about the wrongness of it all, and how our rights are being violated. I'm sorry I had to be pessimistic in my reply, but better to think things are worse than they are, than better for now.
~code

Code
Good job with that satire! I thought it was a pretty good road to follow.
I'm all down with the definitions thing, and I'll add one more as an example.
Insanity is a Legal term, NOT a psychiatric one.
Goes back to M'Naghton in England in the 1843, which is why the test today is STILL called the M'Naghton Rule, or in some circles it's called the "American Law Institute Model Penal Code Test". It (in a nutshell) says that a person has to have the ability (or coherency if you will) to KNOW.. to distinguish the difference.. between right and wrong in order to be held responsible for a crime. Murder, Rape, Graft or any crime. Right being lawful conduct, wrong being unlawful conduct.
Where is all this going you ask? Move along Faithful Reader, it's in the next paragraph.
My point is that with all this definition tossing around, we've hit on a very important note. What the RIAmafiA call "theft" or "stealing".. well, their definition is quite different from the legal one. What they have been calling "piracy" again is quite different from the legal terms. THIS is one of the core issues that need to be addressed. There are also legal "defintions" about what constitutes actual use (a la the example Tinker gave about family use of one computer)..legally that's true that whoever signed the contract would be held liable, but does the RIAA see it like that? Does the DMCA account for that?
I KNOW.. and KNEW from the start that the DMCA was a piece of shit. It was written in a very short period of time, and was/is a very static piece of work. It did NOT take into account family accounts, file sharing, networking in a home, not-for-profit sharing of personal, private files, and stuff like that.
My point was.. it's in the definition. I'm glad you brougt this up Code, it's something that's been on my mind for a while, but I never had a real entry to start with.
Oh, and SlimChance? Send me your stuff. I'll copy it, mail it to my congressman and a few others, and you can let this very post serve as notice of intent. You jumped in here, ranted and left. I don't you, and I dont' care to. It's nice that you excersise your desire to lash out in here tho,gave the rest of us who have been here a while and have at least most of our braincells still in the original condition something to laugh at.
You're a fool son. You've shown it. We're laughing. Now take your ball and go play in someone else's yard, the big people wanna talk.
ttmmm

As always Remye, great points and a well thought out and articulated piece.
You've hit on one thing that I have always used in every debate and legal confrontation I have ever had, and haven't lost a legal battle yet, and that point is this. He (or she) who controls the definitions, controls who wins the argument. People always give Pres. Clinton hell for saying it depends on what "is" is, but that is the way the law is, definitions.
An obvious example is the "offering of files" deal. It's interesting that the attorney in the Jane Doe case is using the defense of there being a difference between just having files in an open folder, and either "distributing" or "uploading" files. I am afraid the court may just find this is what is known in the law as a distinction without a difference, and if they do that, and this is their only defense, that's bad. I understand that also, she claims she thought she had blocked the files, and that might be a little stronger defense, in that it shows she had an intent to avoid distribution, however, still the files were there, and I don't think they were just files ripped from her own CDs. As I said in an earlier post, I think the best hope for most of the earlier cases that DO go to trial, is for a sympathetic jury to do a jury nullification vote. That will frustrate the HELL out of the RIAA, and will set a precendent that may be repeated. From everything I have found out about the views of the RIAA attorneys,they've told the RIAA that they have to not only win EVERY early case, but win BIG, not just a slap on the wrist. One out and out loss is going to be a BIG defeat for them. And, if that happens, it will probably encourage others not to settle out of court (which is what the RIAA wants), but to give them extra hope that they have a chance of winning.
Gotta scoot for now, more later.
I really appreciate having you on this board Reyme. We have so many good minds on this board with great insight into the music business, law, and other topics related to this issue, and I hope more of the people listed as being targets of the lawsuits, will come here and get some idea of the broader implications of this mess.

~code

Eh, the difference between DirectTV and the RIAA is the folks with hacked cards. They were actually stealing service and bandwidth (I knew a guy who made the cards), which was, indeed, theft of a service. It also affected the overall experience for other users, as DirectTV didn't have the equipment in place to handle the hacked cards.

You could draw parallels to "uncapping" your cable modem, or removing the blocks at the pole to get full unmoderated speed on your cable internet connection. It's just a service, right? Um, no. If somebody did that on the same cable node as me, my internet performance would suffer. You're also tampering with property that doesn't belong to you, and removing the blocks and tossing them away is physical property theft.

In either instance, your theft of a service from DirectTV or a cable 'net provider involved tampering with property that was not yours to begin with, and had an adverse effect on other users of the same service.

By contrast, downloading a song doesn't harm the product for another person, nor does it involve physically altering a product to get your free music. Although, even that could be argued in court: I make an album, everybody downloads copies of it, rather than buys it, I make no money, and can't afford to make another album, so many other people lose out on more music from me. I have yet to see, though, how even as many file downloads are going on, where an artist has been unable to perform due to financial hardship.

Somebody posted something good the other day (code, I think it was you), that a jury trial would be nearly impossible, as there are no unbiased jurors available. If it were me, I wouldn't settle out of court, I would want a fair trial. If a fair trial is impossible, due to a lack of unbiased opinion, I can't be tried, correct? There'll really be no gray area, the jurors would either think right or wrong, and the entire outcome of the trial would be based on people's opinions.

Watched TechTV tonight, and got a huge laugh. Fresh Gear was showing a network server, designed for streaming music, that was aimed at.......you guessed it, college dorms.

Wasn't me about finding an unbiased would be impossible, and besides that, per our constitutional right, any case involving over 20 dollars, a citizen is guaranteed a trial by jury if they want one
I saw that deal on TechTv, and even more recently, they showed a wireless WIFI connection that looks like a thumb drive...quick setup.
=>>>===================//>
~code

gmta code. I'm sure glad I found this forum, so I could actually USE the college and experience I've had in the past 10 years or so. Working together, this group has probably educated and enlightened more people on what's what than anything the RIAA can come up with to the opposite.
Heffie: If a jury trial IS impossible (and I'm not saying it is one way or another) you have an option guaranteed by law. It's called a bench trial. I touched on this in an earlier post. It's actually something that's usually reserved exclusively to judges descretion, but it can and has been used by defendants.You get in to court for your statement of facts (first stage in any lawsuit), so the judge can decide if the case even merits a trial. After the judge holds things over for trial, you inform the him/her that you'd like to flex your legal rights and have a bench trial. This is where the judge is pretty much acting as the jury. HE/SHE is the only one that hears the case, and makes decisions accordingly. It could still go either way, but at that point, you are not trying to sway a dozen minds that might or might not be able to figure out (validate if you will) what's being said. You're only trying to persuade ONE person, and politics not-withstanding, you can usually predict the outcome of a bench trial as early as the first day of testimony.
Also, if you can't be tried in a lower court of law, due to bias, messed up jury pool or whatever, ask the judge to recuse him/herself, and request a decision from a higher court (I forgot it, but there is a latin legal term for this move). It's your RIGHT! If any of these requests are denied, then make sure notes/records are kept, because.. guess what..? Another right you have (which the RIAA doesn't ever want you to use) is the right to appeal. You can appeal on grounds of bias, jury, ineffectuall counsel, denial of due process, denial of venue/court change, and yes.. even denial of a request for bench trial. Cool thing is, during an appeal, the RIAA will have to show that it did everything w/i the scope of it's power to ensure you got a fair trial. It basically shifts the onus from the defendant of proving reasonable doubt to "proving why doubt should not exist" on the part of the plaintiff. Judgements CANNOT be pursued until all appeals have been decided, so if the RIAA should win a trial, auto appeal (should be a keyboard shortcut LOL) and you don't have to pay a fucking DIME to anyone till all legal efforts have been exhausted.
WHEW! lots of rights here! The system can and does work if everyone KNOWS what their rights are as guaranteed.
ttmmm

AY..MEN,Remye!

Postin' Postin' Postin'
Code, Gd, Keep Postin'
Riaa is Roastin'
CAN'T HIDE!!!
(Crack of the whip)...Oops..this is an official PARODY of a cattle song..