Interesting new twist RE:RIAA

[DAVETHEMETALGUY]

i read this on www.fmqb.com today

University Lawsuit Fights Back At RIAA Tactics

November 30, 2007
The RIAA's tactics in its lawsuits against college students and universities are being challenged by the University of Oregon. Bloomberg and the Tennessean report that the University has filed in court, claiming the RIAA is using illegal techniques to gather information in its fight against online piracy among students.
"The larger issue may not be whether students are sharing copyrighted music, but whether plaintiffs' investigative techniques and litigation techniques are appropriate," Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers said on behalf of the university in the federal court filing in Eugene, OR.
The RIAA obtained the University's IP addresses via file-sharing Web sites thanks to investigators from MediaSentry, Inc. from SafeNet Inc. The University of Oregon claims that the company does not have a license to seek out such information, according to the court filing. It has filed a motion to block the RIAA's subpoena, making it the first school to challenge the organization's crackdown on campus file sharing.

 

[rms]

oooo

 

[Diamond45]

Hope the RIAA loses!

 

[Iced Dog]

Awesome...congrats to Oregon for not simply bending over to this corporate bully

 

[TBJ]

On related news, according to some news I read this week it seems the RIAA doesnt mess with Harvard. Their tactics are so shady they are afraid that Harvard's horde of lawyers and would-be-lawyers are going to have their asses for breakfast.

 

[Iced Dog]

that's hilarious

 

[Kenneth R.]

Well and Good. Cheers to U Oregon.

 

[Jibrille]

There was a woman at some point who also sued the RIAA and I believe won.

 

[kashford]

The RIAA's tactics time and time again have been criticized and question by lawyers, judges and executives. The simple fact that they discriminate in their lawsuits, by picking and choosing which colleges to fight, should be a call for others to challenge the legitimacy the RIAA claim to have.

 

[SyXified]

sigh... I always have to be the one to stick up for the RIAA. The irony is, I'm not 100% in agreement with anything they do, but it astonishes me that whenever something like this comes up it is ALWAYS 100% one sided, and no issue this complex is understood THAT simply.

First off, always bear in mind that they are suing people who ARE IN FACT VIOLATING THEIR COPYRIGHTS! You can fuss and feud over tactics all you want, in then end that's a loop hole to dodge responsibility for a flagrant violation of copyright. Would anyone really argue that in a hypothetical situation where Person A downloads 100,000 songs illegally, the manner in which the RIAA obtains the evidence against that person actually changes the righteousness of what he has done? It may impact the righteousness of the RIAA, but it does not turn that person's actions from 'immoral' if the info is obtained legitimately to 'righteous' if it is obtained illegitimately.

Furthermore, the RIAA has every right to pick and chose which colleges they go after. I know words like 'discrimination' etc have automatic negative connotations these days - but keep in mind this is not some generic situation where the traditional sense of 'discrimination is bad' applies. Any person has the right to sue or NOT sue anyone over anything. One is NOT obligated to try to establish fairness while suing. If your car gets hit by two drunk driver's in the same night, once by a broke guy and once by a rich guy, you have every right to just sue the rich guy rather than trying to extract money out of someone who has no money to give. You'd really be in luck if Bill Gates got drunk and hit your car, because he has to worry about potential bad publicity and you can probably get paid off an obscene amount just to make the whole thing go away. Point being - any entity files suit in a manner that best suits their purpose - NOT by some attempt to understand and abide by abstract rules of right and wrong. In the case of the RIAA, the last thing they need is to get into some drawn out legal battle with Harvard lawyers over technicalities as has happened here. This is not because they are wrong and picking on the little guys - it's because high price lawyers can adequately argue ANY ridiculous case well, so it's best to dodge that scenario when you can foresee it (just like any sensible person or company would do) .

Now, think about this - the University is suing the RIAA - the University as an entity, NOT the students in some sort of class action. What would a university have to gain from suing the RIAA? They're a governmentally subsidized institution, and it's not as if they are looking for money out of the RIAA anyway, what would be the basis for that suit? The unlawful gathering of information which harmed no one? The University is concerned about their reputation - this is a conspired effort to show prospective students that 'we're the college that sticks up for you!' - which is a MARKETING gimmick to get more publicity > students > MONEY (tuition) for the college. So before everyone goes martyring them - think about their motivation for this action. Or would you prefer to naively believe that the University is truly concerned to spend money to protect a handful of students who have ALREADY PAID THEM...who did in fact violate the law, infringe upon copyrights, and potentially incurred liability AND negative publicity for the college? Some slick guy in a designer suit went 'ya know, if we put the right spin on this thing...' - that's how this happened I guarantee.

Now, while I am certainly by no means enriched in the intricacies of the law regarding the gathering of electronic information properly - I can, regardless, make a simple point based on a wee bit of logic and thought...

NO WAY Oregon U wins the case!

Here's why...

The RIAA used a legitimate company that gathers technological information. And ALL it was was IP addresses, and activities on ILLEGAL download sites (i.e. they weren't hacking around in people's clearly personal affairs). To say that this is illegitimate is to make an extremely bold statement: That regardless of ones unlawful activity over the internet, his privacy, nay COMPLETE ANONYMITY, must be honored. There is no way around that conclusion if you cannot monitor a person's ILLEGAL internet activity, and his most basic of identifications for actions on the internet - the IP address. The IP is the only consistent identifying link! If it is said that you cannot obtain that, it is the equivalent of saying you cannot track anyone on the internet who does not want to be tracked. So regardless of how you feel about the whole illegal downloading issue, the ramifications of this decision would be much further reaching - a disastrous slippery slope at best.

People are currently all for tracking down and stopping petifiles and rapists who use the internet to find and trap their victims without hemming and hawing over the MANNER in which they are discovered (which in this context would seem a truly absurd thing to be concerned with!). What needs to be realized is that there is no way to rectify one situation as okay and the other as not, because both situations are actually the same - discovery of a person for their ILLEGAL activity on the internet. It doesn't matter if morally one finds one act more reprehensible than the other - legally these are just two different means of breaking the law and committing a crime. So if you want to argue that a person should be let off the hook for illegal downloading because of the manner in which that information was obtained, you are essentially committing to the argument that ANY person should be able to sidestep ANY crime if the information leading to their identification was anything short of voluntarily telling the police their name, address, IP number, and granting them permission to check whatever internet activity they would like. It has to be ONE extreme or the other - because trying to play the 'well, this isn't AS bad as that' game instantly becomes subjective and results in that impossible scenario of line drawing, which courts have always made every effort to avoid because of its absurdity.

 

[TXHOSER]

Does the article mention anything about Oregon's ridiculous football uniforms?

 

[freakchylde]

Um, maybe I'm the odd-one out here, but "unlawful" tends to mean "illegal". And maybe it's the pot calling the kettle, but the RIAA loses a bit when it uses illegal processes to fight illegal downloading. They're trying to subvert the system, to give names to the anonymous. To use your own example with a slight change, why sue poor college kids who can't afford the lawyers to challenge the means of information collection, when you can go up against the college who "technically" has more money (and you can lump all the downloaders into one suit). The school has every right to protect the privacy of their computer network from security breaches. In order for the RIAA to work within the law to get what they want, they need to be held to the law. When they stoop to using illegal activities, they need to be held just as accountable for their actions.

 

[TBJ]

here we go again!

 

[J-Dubya 777]

lol!

 

[rockyracoon]

Would anyone really argue that in a hypothetical situation where Person A downloads 100,000 songs illegally, the manner in which the RIAA obtains the evidence against that person actually changes the righteousness of what he has done? It may impact the righteousness of the RIAA, but it does not turn that person's actions from 'immoral' if the info is obtained legitimately to 'righteous' if it is obtained illegitimately.

Yes, I'd argue that. So things like illegal search and seizure, entrapment, etc. are all fine as long as the ends justifies the means? I'm curious as to just how far you'd allow the RIAA to go to nail illegal downloaders? Maybe the RIAA should start illegally raiding dorm rooms and private residences in hopes of finding Bittorrent or Limewire on someone's computer. Moves like this lose them credibility, and I laugh.

 

[nailz]

The RIAA used a legitimate company that gathers technological information. And ALL it was was IP addresses, and activities on ILLEGAL download sites (i.e. they weren't hacking around in people's clearly personal affairs). To say that this is illegitimate is to make an extremely bold statement: That regardless of ones unlawful activity over the internet, his privacy, nay COMPLETE ANONYMITY, must be honored.

So if you want to argue that a person should be let off the hook for illegal downloading because of the manner in which that information was obtained, you are essentially committing to the argument that ANY person should be able to sidestep ANY crime if the information leading to their identification was anything short of voluntarily telling the police their name, address, IP number, and granting them permission to check whatever internet activity they would like. It has to be ONE extreme or the other - because trying to play the 'well, this isn't AS bad as that' game instantly becomes subjective and results in that impossible scenario of line drawing, which courts have always made every effort to avoid because of its absurdity.

Wrong. On so many levels. Maybe you're just not aware of how the internet works or what kind of doors this opens to other kinds of sniffing. The RIAA obtained evidence that basically said people were illigally downloading msuic. Last time I checked, the RIAA weren't the cops. Who would need a search warrant for any such snooping. The RIAA has not only, in this case, but every case previous and subsequent involving COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, violated internet privacy of the HIGHEST sorts, example later, but also did it without a warrant of ANY type, and apparently, without the college consent. I'm sorry, I don't want any company sniffing around my banks computer network while I'm paying bills.

In order to know what the specific students were searching for, this company would have had to sniff out and sort through all network activity. What else did they find that college kids were doing on line? How many could be doing or searching potentially embarrasing things? Who searched or viewed info on AIDS? Hemmroids? Rape victims? Cancer? Sexual Orientation questioning? Bank Accounts? Credit Card information? Passwords? Email? The list goes on and on and on, and the potential for that information to be leaked does NOT outweigh an unlawful search for a few kids downloading some mp3's. If you think this is Ok, you need to seriously re-evaluate your thinking.

I applaud the college for putting a stop to this nonsense and invasion of privacy that could potentially have nothing to do with a non-criminal search. If the RIAA is so worried about the illegality of it, they should take it up with the Police, and let them do the investigating.

 

[SyXified]

First off what makes everyone assume that their means are unlawful? Just because the University is CLAIMING their search means were unlawful doesn't mean they necessarily were - that is what the actual SUIT will determe. The RIAA is contesting their manner of gathering info was completely legit.

There are countless marketing companies that gather data on people's activity on the web, and it is 100% lawful. For example, you go on Amazon.com and buy a few things and suddenly BAM! personalized recommendations every time you come back! "we thought you might be interested in these items". Do you think they just guessed? They have systems in place that monitor your buying habits - not just what you buy but how you buy and navigate their site, and several of those companies share that data with each other. Plus, I have discovered my own little website for gathering information on college kids...some of you may have heard of it...it's called Facebook! The info is out there, and it is NOT private.

People cry out 'right to privacy' and 'illegal search' all the time, and it usually means they have something to hide and are worried about that being exposed. Think about the root of those laws - they are there to keep the police, etc, from gaining too much power and thereby abusing it - NOT to let criminals commit crimes as long as they commit them quietly and in secret. But people act as if the RIAA has a history of irresponsible action like falsely accusing people who were not actually downloading songs, or hoisting credit card numbers... but they HAVEN'T! Go ahead and try to find some record of a real injustice like that. All you'll find is people who are actually guilty desperately clinging to absurd claims like 'their search was not legit' or 'not fair to single me out'.

 

[SyXified]

. To use your own example with a slight change, why sue poor college kids who can't afford the lawyers to challenge the means of information collection, when you can go up against the college who "technically" has more money (and you can lump all the downloaders into one suit).

Because the law suits are not for monetary gain in the direct sense. They are designed to be an example and deterrent for their key demographic of potential illegal downloaders.

For example, when the NHL fines a player for a hit against the boards on a defenseless player, the purpose of that fine is not so the commissioner and his buds can go out to the sizzler with the extra dough. The goal is to deter other players from taking similar action in the future. For the RIAA the idea of suing college students is a way of saying 'listen up ALL college students who download illegally! This could happen to you! So if you are pirating you better stop and if you weren't, don't start'.

More proof it's not just about extorting a pile of cash from some poor college kids - if you'll recall the first batch of RIAA suits were ALL settled and dropped because those sued (all very much guilty) were offered the opportunity to instead star in a commercial explaining the negative impact of piracy and the potential consequences.

 

[nailz]

First off what makes everyone assume that their means are unlawful? Just because the University is CLAIMING their search means were unlawful doesn't mean they necessarily were - that is what the actual SUIT will determe. The RIAA is contesting their manner of gathering info was completely legit.

I'd like to see how IP sniffing is completely legit, which is exactly what they must have been doing, unless they hooked up with the ISP of the college, and even then, they wouldn't be able to track it back to internal IP addresses (assuming any college thus infringed uses a NAS, and I guarentee you, they do.) without sniffing college network specific packets. Without the consent of the College in question, it's a breach of confidential network information security. I worked for a college that, in fact, WORKED with the RIAA in regards to illegal downloads. If Oregon State did not authorize this, it would be ABSOLUTELY in their best interest to prosecute to the full extent of the law.

There are countless marketing companies that gather data on people's activity on the web, and it is 100% lawful. For example, you go on Amazon.com and buy a few things and suddenly BAM! personalized recommendations every time you come back! "we thought you might be interested in these items". Do you think they just guessed? They have systems in place that monitor your buying habits - not just what you buy but how you buy and navigate their site, and several of those companies share that data with each other. Plus, I have discovered my own little website for gathering information on college kids...some of you may have heard of it...it's called Facebook! The info is out there, and it is NOT private.

Your gross ignorance of internet technology and data mining is extremely apparent in your lackluster comparisson. Allow me to enlighten. When Amazon.com makes recommendations to you based on what you're looking at and buying on their site, they use cookies. These files data-mine information and feed that information back to the server based on login usernames and previous website visits per that specific site. Did you ever read that agreement you electronically "signed' when you set up your Amazon.com account? You agreed to allow this to happen. I don't suppose, as a network administrator, or as part of the agreement your domain and/or IP registrar signs the same type of thing with Network Solutions and the RIAA allowing them essentially unlimited access to any network ever.

[/quote]People cry out 'right to privacy' and 'illegal search' all the time, and it usually means they have something to hide and are worried about that being exposed.[/quote]

Yes, I certainly have things I don't wish to become public knowladge. For example, my bank statements, my credit card information, my health records... Stop thinking so one dementionally.

Think about the root of those laws - they are there to keep the police, etc, from gaining too much power and thereby abusing it - NOT to let criminals commit crimes as long as they commit them quietly and in secret.

Recently in Phoenix, a (shitty) newspaper printed the home address of a hard nosed prosecuter online. Natrually, this led to a severe security crackdown on this guys life. The Police department requested subponia's from the website host asking for who went to the site (obviously warrented) and the last 10 or so sites those vistors visited before going to the New Times website as well (completely irrelavent and an extreme invasion of privacy).

But people act as if the RIAA has a history of irresponsible action like falsely accusing people who were not actually downloading songs, or hoisting credit card numbers... but they HAVEN'T! Go ahead and try to find some record of a real injustice like that. All you'll find is people who are actually guilty desperately clinging to absurd claims like 'their search was not legit' or 'not fair to single me out'.

Ok, some records:

Patti Santangelo was targeted by the RIAA in 2005 as part of its crackdown against suspected file-sharing. The divorced mother of five denied engaging in file sharing herself or having any knowledge of its happening in her house. The RIAA subsequently sued two of her children, Michelle and Robert, who were 15 and 11 years old when the alleged infringement took place.

Source

A family in Rome, GA, (one of the 235 defendants) was very surprised when the local newspaper contacted them to ask about the file sharing lawsuit in which they were implicated: "I don't understand this," said James Walls. "How can they sue us when we don't even have a computer?"

Source

The RIAA's ongoing campaign to stamp out file trading by suing consumers is old news. But when details of one of their latest lawsuits became public, it was too good to pass up. A suit filed recently in US District Court named 83-year-old Gertrude Walton as a defendant, accusing her of serving up over 700 songs onto peer-to-peer networks...But this case goes a bit further, as Mrs. Walton actually passed away in December 2004.

Source

Mistaken identity: the RIAA withdraws a lawsuit filed against a 66-year-old sculptor accused of sharing gangsta rap. Not only does she not listen to rap, she cannot even run Kazaa since she has a Macintosh. The RIAA issued a statement indicating that while they were withdrawing the suit for the time being, they would "reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant." Yes, just in case she buys a PC, installs Kazaa, acquires a taste for hip-hop, and decides to start sharing files.

Source

Do I really need to go on?

For example, when the NHL fines a player for a hit against the boards on a defenseless player, the purpose of that fine is not so the commissioner and his buds can go out to the sizzler with the extra dough. The goal is to deter other players from taking similar action in the future. For the RIAA the idea of suing college students is a way of saying 'listen up ALL college students who download illegally! This could happen to you! So if you are pirating you better stop and if you weren't, don't start'.

Also, the NHL fines don't tend to Bankrupt and ruin the lives of the players who are assessed.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

:: long post::

So if a mom fished her child out of a well located on private property and then beat him as punishment, it's ok since the child shouldn't have been trespassing in the first place.