from http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/11/12/3fb235ffa2f0e

RIAA crackdown hits University

By Joe Rauch
Staff Writer

November 12, 2003


The Recording Industry Association of America's "fear and awe" campaign, combating illegal online music sharing, now is claiming UNC's network as a battleground.

The RIAA on Oct. 6 subpoenaed the personal information of an on-campus student it suspects of offering nine copyrighted songs for download, according to documents obtained Tuesday from the Office of the General Counsel.

The request marked the first time the RIAA has subpoenaed UNC for a student's personal information under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The RIAA tracked the user through the file-sharing program Manolito P2P and linked the computer's IP address to the UNC network.

MP2P is like other music-swapping programs, such as KaZaA and LimeWire, which have become popular after pioneering Napster stopped being a free service.

The University has not yet responded to the subpoena, issued in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

David Parker, an assistant general counsel specializing in copyright law, said the University does not plan to respond to the subpoena.

"We consulted with the state attorney general's office when we got this subpoena and notified the RIAA's counsel that we would be submitting a motion to quash this subpoena, on the grounds it was improperly filed," Parker said.

The RIAA responded by telling UNC to ignore the subpoena issued in Washington because a new one would be filed soon in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro.

"We've been sitting on our hands since that communication," Parker said. "It's not that the University is ignoring a subpoena, far from it.

"(Our next action) all depends on when the new subpoena comes from Greensboro."

Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the RIAA, would not comment specifically on the UNC subpoena.

Both Boston College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently contested similar subpoenas on the same grounds, claiming that issuing the subpoenas from Washington was an unfair abuse of subpoena power.

Those two universities later dropped their resistance to the subpoenas when they were re-issued in local federal courts.

The subpoena sent to UNC asks for officials to supply personal information "sufficient to identify the alleged infringer of copyrighted sound recordings."

Parker wouldn't comment on whether the University would provide the user's information when the subpoena is reissued.

He also wouldn't say if his office had contacted the student or if the student would have to seek legal representation.

Under the DMCA, the University as an Internet service provider is required to provide personal information when subpoenaed.

To date, the RIAA has issued more than 1,300 subpoenas under the act, primarily from the federal district court in Washington.

Contact the Projects Team at jbfrank@email.unc.edu.

Great article Joe!

NINE SONGS? Where's that 1000 song limit...
well..9 X 150K = 1,350,000 dollars, right?

9 songs. God damn what a waste.

oh they'l probably reason with him and charge the usual 2000

Hopefully this one will make it to court to help illustrate how frivolous the whole riaa campaign is and how they’re using our swamped court system to further their monopoly on the music industry.

RIAA attorneys mentioned that they would start targeting smaller users about six weeks ago.

The good news is that with 9 songs you can fight back. The most one would be liklely liable for, and I said likely not definitely, is $750 per song (possibly 200) plus attorney's fees. Since the atty fees are discretionary I would put the likely exposure between 6 and 7 grand.

In the words of our illustrious boy prseident "Bring em on!"

College students settlements (except for Lorraine) have generally been in the 10,000 to 17,000 range.

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=146
'Luckily for the students, they will not be required to pay for each copyright violation, which could have easily topped 100 million. Rather, over a course of several years, they will be required to pay between 12,000 and 17,000 dollars. Still pricey, but certainly not the end of the world."17,000. "

People NOT in college have seemingly got away much cheaper.

Damn right. This is nothing short of extortion, or maybe theft/robbery.

Why should a college student pay $17000, when anyone else gets a settlement of around $2000-$7000? That's just wrong, no excuses.

Welcome to NC...not

This is very handy considering my current mp3.com complaint.

If nine songs given away for free constitutes copyright infringement, then 11 songs sold for profit is criminal copyright infringement.

I do not belive that a US District Court judge would ever award more than $750 per song. The judges also have discretion to reduce them to as low as $200 per song.

The college students who settled between 10k and 17k were running their own self contained networks.

Otherwise the settlements have averaged aroun 3k for anyone using p2p networks like kazaa or limewire.

The RIAA power wwll dimish when this gets before a judge.

I agree George!

It depends on the judge. When all this started, back in late June, I found an article in an LA paper which reported that attorneys for the RIAA had already advised the RIAA how to conduct the sue the world campaign. The article said they had already canvassed the country, and found not only the best jurisdictions, but also, the Judges most favorable to them. It appears that the RIAA did not follow that advice thus, far, however; the advice was predicated on the idea that actual court cases would be filed and proceed forward into trial.

If they got a Judge who wanted to "send a message" it could be bad news, plus, remember Ashcroft ordered a list of federal judges who were being "too lenient" in sentencing (but that was criminal cases), but with the globalist agenda of the current administration, I would not be surprised to find judges being pressured to "make an example" out of these alleged infringers.
~Code

I thought North Carolina was "the better place to be..."? At least it said that in the tourism mailers I got!

If the guy settles, how is this going to get before a judge?

That's why the "immature" labeled Democratic filibusters of court judge appointees are so important, now.

If Bush gets all his guys in, there's no telling where this will all stop.

It's time that all the tools in the chest are thrown at these morons. Now. 2004 may be too late.

Code.

With all due respect. The RIAA does not get to choose the judges. The RIAA lost their motion to have the cases deemed related in LA. Thus, in the Central District of California. They have to run the gammut of the enitre selection of judges. Many of whom would be more than happy to slam the RIAA.

Further the RIAA never thought that anyone would fight them. Their rntire plan rests on this premise.

The Ashcorft sentencing guidelines are totally irrelevant. They pertain to the criminal sentencing guidlines which are a formula that the judges are required to follow. Additionally, all of the judges are quite pissed off at Ashcroft for that as well.

Judges do not send messages in civil cases, the juries do that Otherwise the judges try and be fair. They will not like the idea of the RIAA making more money than they lost in a civil suit. If left up to the judges they would most likely award 9cds * the retail price of 19.99 = 171.91.

Of course the RIAA is going to blame there loss of profit across the industry on this one porr soul but the judge will not buy that. They will have to prove it. They can't even make a decent argument that all of the filetrading combined hasn't done that.

With all due respect, please let me cover your points Raoulduke1.

What I said about judges was this:
"If they got a Judge who wanted to "send a message" it could be bad news, plus, remember Ashcroft ordered a list of federal judges who were being "too lenient" in sentencing (but that was criminal cases), but with the globalist agenda of the current administration, I would not be surprised to find judges being pressured to "make an example" out of these alleged infringers."

Judges have enormous power in civil courts. They can allow or disallow evidence, they can deny motions, they run the court! If a judge wants to influence how much one side in a civil case is able to gain an advantage, then he can, and to that extent, it is possible to send a subliminal message. Judges are NOT little robots. They have biases like most people, although, in theory, as triers of fact, they should not, but certainly, judges can influence how a trial goes, and their actions can be appealed as well.

"The RIAA does not get to choose the judges. The RIAA lost their motion to have the cases deemed related in LA. Thus, in the Central District of California. They have to run the gammut of the enitre selection of judges. Many of whom would be more than happy to slam the RIAA. "
I didn't say that did. I said that, early on in this mess, the LA Times reported, in an article, that RIAA lawyers had advised them which judges would be more sympathetic to their side, and which jurisdictions would be best to file in....actually it was saying which jurisdictions would be better to file in first to have the best chance of winning.

It is a known fact among lawyers, that certain jurisdicitons, and juries in those jurisdictions, are plaintiff or defendant friendly, in various cases. For example, some counties in Texas are more friendly toward ruling on behalf of accident victims, and other counties are notariously bad about going against a person filing an auto accident case. That's a fact and trial attorneys know this. In fact, CBS aired an article on one county in a Southern state, where product liability cases involving pharmaceuticals, had the best change of winning.

"The Ashcorft sentencing guidelines are totally irrelevant. They pertain to the criminal sentencing guidlines which are a formula that the judges are required to follow. Additionally, all of the judges are quite pissed off at Ashcroft for that as well."

Please note that I did make a note the Ashcroft thing involving criminal cases...
"it could be bad news, plus, remember Ashcroft ordered a list of federal judges who were being "too lenient" in sentencing (but that was criminal cases), but with the globalist agenda of the current administration, I would not be surprised to find judges being pressured to "make an example" out of these alleged infringers."

And, I stand completely behind the notion that there are some judges who are more pro-administration, pro-big business, that would be easier to try a DMCA case in front of than others. I think most anyone knowing human nature would agree with me on that.

On your statement "Further the RIAA never thought that anyone would fight them. "...I honestly don't know what they thought, and believe only they know what they thought.0

Your statement about
"Additionally, all of the judges are quite pissed off at Ashcroft for that as well."
I don't know that, and haven't read that they are all upset over it. I imagine many are, but the all inclusive "all" is usually a reach in a world of diverse opinions.

On "They have to run the gammut of the enitre selection of judges. Many of whom would be more than happy to slam the RIAA. "...
I certainly wish that were true, but I find no justification for being that.

Other than that...lol...we agree
Cordially,
~Code

typo.."I certainly wish that were true, but I find no justification for being that."
should read...

"I certainly wish that were true, but I find no justification for being that certain about what they would or would not do."

Probably the best case I know showing how judges can send a message, is the statement in the record of The Honorable William B. Bohling
Third district, Salt Lake City,Utah.
The case was Camplell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
The Honorable William B. Bohling
sends a very clear, and unambiguous message in this ruling against State Farm, showing his utter contempt and disdain for the actions of the company.

http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/campbell.htm
Read the section titled as:
"2. The Nature of State Farm's Misconduct "

If that doesn't send a message in a civil case, I don't know what would.

First, I think it is pretty clear that we generally agree on just about everything.

Judges can be totally irrational and go sideways at any moment, but all parties to litigation run that risk equally.

As far as the which judges are going to be more sympathetic to them and which ones are not. Lets just say that there have been conversations with RIAA attys where they have come out and discussed which judges are going to be more favorable to them and they have a tendency to fool themsleves.

You seem to be pretty good at research, you should look up the awards for CR infringement in the central district of California. You may notice that the awards typically are consistent with actual damages.

I have personally observed central district judges slam big corporations, in CR suits, even when the facts and the law go against the little guy.

With the right defense strategy it will be nearly impossible to prove any infringement. The only thing they can prove is if you downloaded a song. They can't prove distribution. The, they will have to prove that you actually downloaded each specific song. Not your friend, or your daughter, or her friends.

While the staturtory damages are available, the judge or the jury will tie the award to actual damages.

In my "opinion" the majority of the federal judiciary will look for reasons to rule against the record companies.

Federal judges, even the conservative ones are typically liberal guys.

but not everyone has settled. someones fighting them. it just hasn't gone to court yet

OK someone has got to know from the subpoenas issued in DC, who is being targetted. What happens if they are settled, what does it say on the subpoenas? Does the EFF track this?

From what it looks like the first half of the year may be interesting. Cases finally coming to court.

I agree with above, that thr RIAA's plan is not to go to court. Imagine if little Brianna had a $750,000 judgement against her, the press would be bad, even Riaa toadie CNN would not be kind. So they keep it under the radar with small settlements.

They probably get larger judgements from college students because they feel that there is a Daddy Warbucks with lots of cash behind each one.

Here is one for the Code man.

Could the Riaa come after you if you are on a Indian Reservation? If so, who would hear the case, Tribal judge or Federal Judge?

CriticalError glad to see that you posted it here. Again great article!

This is indeed a travesty that the evil empire is subjagating the American public at large.

riaa motto: Leave no suit left unfiled...

Actually, I'm 1/4 Native American, so that is an excellent question...
The problem is that, and I may be wrong on this one, different tribes, as sovereign nations have different treaties with the US. From cases on the record, it appears that in certain states, the US federal district court would assume jurisdiction for alleged wrongs committed against non Native Americans in other states. Since, in general, tribal councils and their decisions are binding on members of the tribe and not on American citizens in other states, I believe jurisdiction would be in Federal discrict court of the state within which the reservation is located. There are NAs who are in opposition to sovereign native peoples losing their self determination and having to be overseen by laws of the US (a stance I agree with by the way).

Indian tribes have been held to be sovereign nations, and thus, there may be certain treaties which would offer protection from something like the DMCA on tribal lands. And, interestingly enough, the federal gov, and most tribes, have set 1/4 Native American lineage to be the minimum blood line for inclusion into a tribe, and for being qualified for federal benefits. So, I guess that's me too.

raoulduke1
"First, I think it is pretty clear that we generally agree on just about everything. "

Cool with me I agree.

I live in a very small town, sparsly populated (the biggest town in a 50 mile radius is 4000 people)... we all know our judge personally, and he's been in that office for a long time, he'd tell RIAA to go blow... if he was obligated by law to award them anything, it would be a minimum, and if they copped any kind of bad attitude (being strangers and all) he'd wipe out that award! - I've seen him do this personally!

id trade cattle and moonshine for riaa scalps.

it would be great if those kind of judges were involved in these RIAA suits!

The RIAA lie's and misleads again, like that is nothing new.

Well, hopefully the people at UNC-Chapel Hill will laugh in the face of the RIAA and refuse to give out the information of the person with only 9 lousy songs.

I guess this just proves that the RIAA is going to try and make it a crime to even rip a song to your computer, insisting instead that you place each CD in separately. Before long, the labels will probably figure a way to keep you from skipping to your favorite song, stick it somewhere at the end and force you to listen to filler.

Anyhoo, if it's one thing we North Carolinians don't take, it's BS from corporate idiots. They can take away our jobs, but they'll never take away our music.

"Listening to Music is a right, not a privilege. The RIAA wants to make it a privilege."

Code
Looks like its time to get in touch with your roots. It would be interesting to see what their take of the current situation is.

On another tack has anyone tried submitting their story/opinion to other publications besides this site? Not trying to slight this site but it would be interesting to see what the reaction to a piece about the mission of this site published in say AARP, Ebony, or others. Code, at 51 I believe you may be able to join AARP (not trying to be funny), there is a whole new group to bring your writings to. And they Vote!

Actually, at 50, AARP started sending me letters begging me to join, and they keep sending me letters...you know surf..that is an idea..and I will look into it . Right now I write stuff on this site, two or three other sites, on two boards,
am now a news editor for PeerGuardian, and try to answer a bunch of mail..and I feel sometimes I don't do justice to any of those places..lol...

I sincerely appreciate those ideas.

We have the coolest posters anywhere here...

If nine songs given away for free constitutes copyright infringement, then 11 songs sold for profit is criminal copyright infringement.

So when you going to file George, seems you do have a case after all, and
Mp3.com sold your CD with our paying you for it, so they are no better off than the guys who sell copied CD at the flea markets around the country.

This one really sucks I'm so mad I can't even comment!

"So when you going to file George, seems you do have a case after all, and
Mp3.com sold your CD with our paying you for it, so they are no better off than the guys who sell copied CD at the flea markets around the country."

George has a case for breach of contract, not copyright infringement. It would cost him much more to sue than he would ever see in damages, so a lawuist is pointless.