Jane Doe Challenges RIAA
First shot fired with motion in federal court
(old news - 09:53AM Saturday Aug 23 2003)
An anonymous Kazaa user, and Verizon broadband subscriber, has filed a motion in federal court seeking to delay the release of personal information subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America. This is the first action of its kind by an individual in the ongoing battle between filesharing and the music industry. Verizon itself lost one round of the fight in June when the court compelled them to turn over names in response to RIAA subpoenas, but that ruling is still under appeal. Before turning over names, however, Verizon is legally obligated to notify the subscriber of the subpoena. "When we get a subpoena, we notify the customers the RIAA is seeking their identity, and we ask them to notify us if they are planning on challenging it," a Verizon spokeswoman said. "We informed the recording industry that one of our customers intended to challenge and asked the RIAA to deal with the lawyers directly." Jane Doe, according to the papers filed in court, was a Kazaa user but tried to prevent other people from accessing files on her computer and used the Kazaa file-swapping software as a music player largely to listen to songs she had ripped from her own CDs Glenn Peterson, attorney for Jane Doe asserts that "the recent efforts of the music industry to root out piracy have addressed a uniquely contemporary problem with Draconian methods -- good old-fashioned intimidation combined with access to personal information that would make George Orwell blush."
|
 
Jeff_B
Premium
join:2000-09-24
Brick, NJ
| Yeah right quote:
Jane Doe, according to the papers filed in court, was a Kazaa user but tried to prevent other people from accessing files on her computer and used the Kazaa file-swapping software as a music player largely to listen to songs she had ripped from her own CDs
It is good to see someone standing up for themselves but good luck with that defense. | |
|  | 
Archivis
Your Daddy
Premium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Yeah right Good luck proving otherwise. I'll admit that if you didn't use Kazaa for filesharing that it still has a good file-manager/media player if you're not sharing it.
The defense might work since they'd have to prove that she willingly shared her files. Doesn't kazaa automaticly share files by default?
--
The Internet Hitman | TIHM chat | Going Against the Grind | |
| | |
Jeff_B
Premium
join:2000-09-24
Brick, NJ | Re: Yeah right I can't remember if the official version of Kazaa shares by default. I use Kazaa Lite and the version I have disables sharing by default. | |
| | | | Bowersdmstec
join:2001-02-02
Washington, IL | Re: Yeah right Thats weird, every version of K Lite that I have used sets my upload to 3 uploads at the same time by default.
Whiteice | |
| | | | | 
DenverDialup
join:2003-06-06
Littleton, CO
clubs: | Re: Yeah right I think every version of Kazaa or Kazaa Lite shares the contents of "My Shared Folder" by default, unless you turn it off (as I have done)... | |
| | | | |
Jeff_B
Premium
join:2000-09-24
Brick, NJ | Yes you are right. I just checked with a clean install. It has been a while since I installed it. | |
| | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| I can see one of the reasons why this person doesn't want her name released. This is one of the lamest excuses I have ever heard. Yes Kazaa does not share your files by default you have to let it scan your files, very dangerous if you don't have your exclusions set. but with all of the free players out their, Winamp, db poweramp, etc, etc this story just does not wash. She would have been better off batting her teeny-bopper eyes and crying, I didn't know, I didn't know....... Lord voldemort is controlling me by an imperious curse.
--
low Brass Rules!
Irish Terriers do to!!!
[text was edited by author 2003-08-23 11:06:27] | |
| | | 
Omega
Displaced Ohioan
Premium
join:2002-07-30
Cheyenne, WY
clubs: | Re: Yeah right I agree, the defense is pretty lame. But at least someone is challenging them.
why you would use Kazaa for a media player is beyond me. | |
| | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Yeah right I think the defense is as valid as any other. Just because other people would do things differently doesn't mean this person did exactly as she said. The RIAA needs to realize they cannot just arbitrarily sue someone just because they 'suspect' copyright infringement. According to the RIAA you are guilty if you have the files and they are shared mode. Doesn't matter if nobody actually downloads files from you computer. That, if you ask me, is an even lamer offense.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
| | | | cableblows3
join:2001-06-17
Indianapolis, IN
| said by Omega  :
I agree, the defense is pretty lame. But at least someone is challenging them.
why you would use Kazaa for a media player is beyond me.
maybe they don't have phonehome software like most of the others? | |
| | | | 
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT
| It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
She has Kazaa, the MP3s and was sharing... nobody uses Kazaa just to listen to their own collection... a likely story, she has...not.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
'»www.dv-clips.com
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
| |
| | | | | 
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| Re: Yeah right said by 91439306 :
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
Hypothetical:
There's a dead body in my driveway, a bullet went right through him and is unrecoverable, so ballistic tests are not possible. I own a handgun. A round is missing from the clip. They spread some fluid on my hand and prove that I've used a firearm in the last 12 hours, and nobody's fingerprints are on the weapon but mine.
That still won't wash. The prosecution still needs to do their homework and actually bother to PROVE something, unless they want to look real stupid when the owner of the firing range where I practice, as well as the grounds keeper who remembers my jokes and the bar waitress who flirts with me, all testify that I was target-practicing on their premises at the time my neighbor heard the gunshot, proving me guilty of perforating cardboard.
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt. 
--
That's no longer true; with enough money, you can fool all the people all the time. | |
| | | | | | 
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Re: Yeah right Very true, I like your analogy. And I am tired the way big businesses decide that its alright to screw the customers. The RIAA also seems to forget about the fair use laws, they should also have to prove that all these people have never owned any of the music they have, in any type of media. For instance, I own GTA Vice City. The game has some good 80's music on it, and anytime I want to listen to that, I just have to pop the game in and hop in a car and let the music play. Well, thats kind of a pain in the ass, so I just went and downloaded a few of the songs from the game. If I already own the "right" to listen to the music by owning the game, cant I also trnasfer said music to an mp3 and listen to it on my pc? Also, many years ago, when I was about 13 or 14, I bought STP's first album, about 4 years later, my cousins stereo decided it wasnt gonna let me have the cd back, so it got scratched when I had to take it out. So the other day I went and downloaded all the songs I liked off of that album. According to them, that is my "right" since I paid for the damn cd. Just because I dont still have the ruined disk or a receipt doesnt mean that I didnt own the stupid thing. Thats what the RIAA should have to prove in court.
--
what doesn't this button do? | |
| | | | | | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Site5.com
 ·Comcast
| said by ravital :
said by 91439306 :
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
Hypothetical:
There's a dead body in my driveway, a bullet went right through him and is unrecoverable, so ballistic tests are not possible. I own a handgun. A round is missing from the clip. They spread some fluid on my hand and prove that I've used a firearm in the last 12 hours, and nobody's fingerprints are on the weapon but mine.
That still won't wash. The prosecution still needs to do their homework and actually bother to PROVE something, unless they want to look real stupid when the owner of the firing range where I practice, as well as the grounds keeper who remembers my jokes and the bar waitress who flirts with me, all testify that I was target-practicing on their premises at the time my neighbor heard the gunshot, proving me guilty of perforating cardboard.
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt.
Theres one problem with that and that is the people who the RIAA are going after ARE sharing files. Sure, if you are using Kazaa, you may or may not be sharing anything. The key is they are going after people who are sharing and they have proof of it.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| said by ravital :
said by 91439306 :
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
Hypothetical:
There's a dead body in my driveway, a bullet went right through him and is unrecoverable, so ballistic tests are not possible. I own a handgun. A round is missing from the clip. They spread some fluid on my hand and prove that I've used a firearm in the last 12 hours, and nobody's fingerprints are on the weapon but mine.
That still won't wash. The prosecution still needs to do their homework and actually bother to PROVE something, unless they want to look real stupid when the owner of the firing range where I practice, as well as the grounds keeper who remembers my jokes and the bar waitress who flirts with me, all testify that I was target-practicing on their premises at the time my neighbor heard the gunshot, proving me guilty of perforating cardboard.
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt.
Murder can be proven on circumstantial evidence. If the prosecutor had enough in your handgun case, he could get a conviction, even without the weapon. Now obviously, if you had an alibi that would come out early, and the prosecution would not waste its time. While the actual bullet would be nice, with modern forensics (assuming you actually fired it) I suspect the prosecutor could build a decent case.
Regardless, you're mixing up apples and oranges. Reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence in criminal, not civil cases. The RIAA has a much lower standard of evidence then if she was criminally charged.
As an example, that is why there was not enough evidence to toss O.J. in jail, but there was enough for him to loss the wrongful death civil suit. | |
| | | | | | |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| Re: Yeah right said by joebear29 :
Regardless, you're mixing up apples and oranges. Reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence in criminal, not civil cases. The RIAA has a much lower standard of evidence then if she was criminally charged.
Good point, I stand corrected. And to be honest, I was responding to someone's analogy of a drug dealer caught with scales and other paraphernalia... Equally a criminal case and not a civil one.
Now to expand on your earlier point, sure, many innocent folks are serving time for crimes they didn't commit. I know the score, it's not evidence or truth or justice, it's the ability of an attorney (on either side) to persuade a jury. [I keep thinking of the policewoman from Milwaukee who was convicted on evidence that she owned a red sweatsuit when she claimed to own a green one. The smashing piece of evidence presented by the prosecutor: He held up a black and white photo of her jogging and told the jury that was a red sweatsuit, and they all nodded.]
So as long as it's just a matter of the attorney's, er, gonads, that's all she needs to worry about, a better attorney. Wouldn't surprise me if she finds it difficult to afford one. And given the assault on civil rights that the DMCA represents (this being the law that is the basis for all those subpoenas), it wouldn't surprise me either if a good one offered his/her services pro bono. Maybe not on this case, but on the next one.
In addition, since everyone so cleverly points out that this is civil and not criminal - not complaining, you understand, glad to see my error pointed out to me, but why do I keep hearing that filesharing is a CRIME CRIME CRIME all the time? Why do the DMCA and the NET Act carry criminal penalties? As long as we're on that subject, anyone care to explain this?
--
That's no longer true; with enough money, you can fool all the people all the time.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-23 18:04:24] | |
| | | | | | | | 
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: Yeah right I would only ask one question:
What makes folks here think that what the RIAA is doing is pursuing civil cases?
The one anonymous poster would be correct-in a civil case, PROPONDERANCE of the evidence is all that is required to prove one's case...however, it has been defined that copyright infringement is a CRIMINAL act. As such, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.
If anyone disagrees, I would ask them to observe something the next time they put a DVD in their player to watch...at the beginning, you will notice the disclaimer, notated in very distinct red and white typeface, describing copyright infringement as a criminal action, not a civil one.
What the RIAA is doing is saving face in lieu of being able to satisfy a legal prerequisite for being able to prove criminal actions.
Also, bear in mind that in a civil case, even if one gets a judgement they think they deserve, there are really no processes in place for forcing a responsible party to ante up.
It's the principle of the thing for the RIAA.
I will not comment on this person's guilt. Maybe she's guilty, maybe not. But if she is guilty of something, it is up to the RIAA to prove it as such, and it is up to our legal system to adhere to the accepted standards of culpability of guilt as prescribed by due process of law.
In short, the RIAA is on the losing end, in my mind.
Just because some huge conglomerate's watchdog group believes this person is guilty does not make it so, and the legal system cannot or should not be influenced by the whinings of big business.
--
"It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm wearin' milk bone underwear." | |
| | | | | | | | |
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| Re: Yeah right said by BrianDamage :
What the RIAA is doing is saving face in lieu of being able to satisfy a legal prerequisite for being able to prove criminal actions.
Right on the money IMHO. Not to mention, starting with a civil case where the rules of evidence are more relaxed, and obtaining a conviction based on such evidence, makes it easier to later prosecute a criminal case and use the verdict of the preceding criminal case as argument.
--
He who laughs last made a backup
[text was edited by author 2003-08-25 08:25:23] | |
| | | | | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| said by BrianDamage :
I would only ask one question:
What makes folks here think that what the RIAA is doing is pursuing civil cases?
The one anonymous poster would be correct-in a civil case, PROPONDERANCE of the evidence is all that is required to prove one's case...however, it has been defined that copyright infringement is a CRIMINAL act. As such, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.
Copyright infringement is both a criminal (no electronic theft) and civil (DMCA) offense. The RIAA can choose which it wants to pursue, and it chooses civil. That is its legal right, and I find criticism of it avoiding criminal charges at this time to be a tad disingenious, since I suspect the same people complaining of the RIAA avoiding the higher evidence standards of criminal cases would be the first to complain the RIAA was trying to throw people in jail instead of seeking monetary compensation if they were pursuing criminal charges.
Regardless, the RIAA is pursuing civil cases and they have a very friendly law on their side. If I was a betting man, and one of these went to trial, I would take the RIAA in a heartbeat. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: Yeah right quote:
said by joebear29
Copyright infringement is both a criminal (no electronic theft) and civil (DMCA) offense. The RIAA can choose which it wants to pursue, and it chooses civil. That is its legal right, and I find criticism of it avoiding criminal charges at this time to be a tad disingenious, since I suspect the same people complaining of the RIAA avoiding the higher evidence standards of criminal cases would be the first to complain the RIAA was trying to throw people in jail instead of seeking monetary compensation if they were pursuing criminal charges.
Regardless, the RIAA is pursuing civil cases and they have a very friendly law on their side. If I was a betting man, and one of these went to trial, I would take the RIAA in a heartbeat.
One needs to know when to fold their hand, and I would not be betting if I were you.
Copyright infringement can be prosecuted both ways, but if you were to ask our Department of Justice (DOJ) or Interpol, both of which are charged with enforcing copyright laws (domestically and internationally, as respected), they would both indicate that copyright infringement is a criminal act.
That's why the disclaimer that I mentioned exists on the products, as I indicated. They also specifically point to criminal activity, not civil, specifically.
As to your comment, the RIAA is not pursuing criminal proceedings BECAUSE of the relaxed degree of culpability required to prosecute the cases, and for no other reason.
Additionally, they stand a better chance of getting civil judgements in these situations because THEY can decide what the punishment can be (because the damages in a civil case are monetary), and this relates solely to the fact that the culpability required to solidify a conviction that would imprison someone would be much harder to attain.
Also, think about another fact regarding the criminal convictions-
How could the RIAA reasonably expect to obtain a criminal conviction against a Kazaa user, to the extent of five years in prison AND a $250,000 fine, who works at McDonald's and makes $6.50 an hour?
I know that this scenario is entirely hypothetical, however, the RIAA recognizes that they are NOT likely to be able to EVER see any convictions such as these, even against the "supernode" operators.
This is the reason why they choose the civil route.
Not because that they could freely choose between the two, but because their chance of establishing a precedent exists in much greater magnitudes than in choosing the criminal route.
In closing, I will provide you an example of such power-playing, and think about it for a moment:
OJ killed two people. Criminally, he got away with it. Not because he didn't do it, but because of many other factors, not the least of which was the LA prosecutor's inability to make a solid case.
Whatever the reason, OJ walked away.
Later, the Browns and Goldmans sued OJ Simpson in a civil suit, where the burden of proof is much less.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt versus "proponderance of the evidence."
In the civil case, OJ was found to have "contributed" to the deaths of Nicole Brown nd Ron Goldman, because the evidence was stronger that he HAD something to do with it, versus the argument that he didn't. That's what "proponderance of the evidence" means- it means simply that the evidence would show that someone was likely to have contributed to something rather than not.
That's why the Goldmans and the Browns got the civil judgement.
The final kicker is that to this day, OJ still has not paid up to the order of the civil judgment.
The RIAA is pursuing the same legal route because of the ease in obtaining judgments.
Your argument needs to be rethought based on the available legal interpretations and legal precedents, and not just because you feel a certain way.
--
"It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm wearin' milk bone underwear." | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Yeah right said by NOVA_Guy :
Not if it's a jury trial and I'm sitting on the jury. I'm one of those people who couldn't care less how much evidence the RIAA presents against the defendant. No matter what I would side with the defendant. It doesn't matter if the person was running a supernode-- I refuse to help the RIAA, even if they are in the right.
Why? Why would I support "criminals"? Simple. Right now it's the only way the RIAA gets what it deserves. The RIAA deserves nothing, so that's what would get. (Actually, that's wrong, as IMHO some of the RIAA and MPAA execs deserve something-- it's just not a very pleasant something and involves violence, brutality, and a cellmate named "Bubba".  )
Civil trials do not require unanimous verdicts. And while your views may be in the vast majority on this board (and I dislike the RIAA and its tactics myself) I have the feeling the number of "pathologically hate the RIAA" percentage of potential jurors is not enough for that to become a factor. There are many more who simply dislikethe RIAA, but actually listen to the evidence and make a decision based on the law. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: Yeah right You say civil trials do not require unanimous verdicts...just another reason for the RIAA to pursue this route.
Easier for them to pull off.
I think we've established their tactics in this case.
--
"It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm wearin' milk bone underwear." | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
IndyMike
@12.55.x.x | But we're talking CIVIL law here, not criminal. Perponderence of evidence is all it takes.
But the jump from "she could have" to "she did" is what they better prove ...... otherwise ...... no case. | |
| | | | | | wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| said by ravital :
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt.
I would so love to agree with you. This is the RIAA though -- if they say it is so, who are we to disagree? <sigh>
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
| | | | | | | 
L0GiX
When all else fails, theres always L0GiX
Premium
join:2000-06-30
South Bay,CA
clubs:
| Re: Yeah right said by wtansill :
I would so love to agree with you. This is the RIAA though -- if they say it is so, who are we to disagree? <sigh>
I so hope you said that with sarcasm. What a corporation says and tries to sue on is one thing. What's legal and truthful is another. If with the recent Enron, WorldComm, and other such corporate swindling hasn't opened your eyes to the corporate world then I don't know what will until your brought to court for miniscule items.
Granted they have the government in their pocket along with as much cash to keep you in court until eternity, but I really hate to see someone make a statement like that. You may be saying in jest (as I hope you are) but there are tons of brain washed sheep out there that need to wake up and see that they are being lead to the slaughter house and they are happily going.
So Sad.
There are too many other things in this world and country to focus on and fix then waste precious resources over some industries realization that their business model is dead and is fighting viciously trying to scrap as much money as possible before the world just moves on to another way of doing things. Hence SCO.
So at the end of this statement I really hope your joking in that statement of what RIAA states is truth rather then see them for what they really are. Sad sad organization trying to keep a industry alive when they could use the money to change it into something better for them and for us.
--Write your representatives in Congress and let them know what your views on this whole thing. If they don't see the larger portion of their constituents are against it they will go with who will put more money in their pocket and the P2P Industry is just starting their special interests group---
--
Two most common elements in the universe: Hydrogen & Stupidity. | |
| | | | | | 
JE
Can I Taste It? Mmmm
Premium
join:2000-12-15
Brooklyn, NY
| said by ravital :
said by 91439306 :
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
Hypothetical:
There's a dead body in my driveway, a bullet went right through him and is unrecoverable, so ballistic tests are not possible. I own a handgun. A round is missing from the clip. They spread some fluid on my hand and prove that I've used a firearm in the last 12 hours, and nobody's fingerprints are on the weapon but mine.
That still won't wash. The prosecution still needs to do their homework and actually bother to PROVE something, unless they want to look real stupid when the owner of the firing range where I practice, as well as the grounds keeper who remembers my jokes and the bar waitress who flirts with me, all testify that I was target-practicing on their premises at the time my neighbor heard the gunshot, proving me guilty of perforating cardboard.
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt.
But if you're BLACK and this happened, you're GUILTY - no questions asked!
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of racial injustice, lol
Thank you
JE
--
Like R&B and Hip Hop? Well, check out my station... It's called: Urban Hitz Radio! »www.urbanhitzradio.us | |
| | | | | | | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Yeah right if she can afford Johnny Cochrain, then the RIAA is screwed.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs: | I don't know, but as someone else in this thread said, it does make a nice file browser for my media. | |
| | | 
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs: | "Kazaa does not share by default"
kazaa does share by default | |
| runlevelfour
join:2002-06-12
USA
| Weak defense Im really questioning the defense shes using......the RIAAs lawyers are going to rip it apart, and the courts arent going to stop them either. Her defense essentially equates to "your honor I didnt know I was sharing" at which the RIAAs attorneys will state "why did she use a filesharing program then?" I have a tough time believing this case will even make the RIAAs team of crack attorneys even blush. | |
| |
See 21 replies to this post | |
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs: | LEECH "was a Kazaa user but tried to prevent other people from accessing files on her computer"
come on now lady, thats not in good spirits
www.k-lite.tk
| |
| | 
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | Re: LEECH I agree...downloading but not sharing is just wrong. | |
| | 
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | I am one too, unfortunatly due to OOL blocking some of the sharing ports. | |
| | 
superht1
join:2001-02-22
Kennesaw, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| Its ok if kazaa died, there are others like irc, bittorent, dc, limewire, ES5, winmx and many more that I am not too familiar with. Why limit yourself to only 1 thing?
That is just too lame and make it so easy for them to stop you from sharing because: no kazaa = end of sharing. | |
| 
frankenfeet
Premium
join:2001-10-14
Smiths Grove, KY
 ·Insight VOIP
·Insight Communicat..
| Entirely Possible I think that it's entirely possible that a person thats not computer savey could unknowingly share copyright material. Remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. She doesn't have to proof her innocents, they have to proof her guilt. Of course, I believe this is a civil matter, so the evidence doesn't have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". I think with the right lawyers, she could get off. It will probably never make it to trial though. I'm sure the RIAA, doesn't want to risk losing a case, so they'll work it out with some sort of settlement. Guess we'll have to wait and see though.
--
"Sometimes your ahead, sometimes your behind. The race is long and in the end it's only with yourself." | |
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Entirely Possible It's definitely true. I am having trouble keeping Kazaa Lite from sharing certain files. I tell it NOT to share certain folders but somehow I see people downloading those files. Maybe it's because I have an older version or maybe it's a fluke or setting I am not seeing, but it's entirely possible to not be at fault if basic options aren't working or you just don't know how to change them.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
| | | 
spenster
join:2001-04-03
Houston, TX
| Re: Entirely Possible I also agree. A long time ago, I tried out Kazaa to see what all the buzz was about and I happened to get a hold of someone who had a song that I wanted to try out. While going through a list of other files he had, I came across a slew of other files that I didn't think he would want to have shared. Things like his Quicken file, resume, mailbox files, and so on. I sent him a message through the Kazaa client to let him know and he responded back to thank me. He went on to explain that he never asked it to search his system for music files and also set it to not share anything. | |
| | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Entirely Possible Interesting argument, but it is the user's responsiblity to prevent the sharing of illegal files when using a program like Kazaa. While she might have a case if the program malfunctioned, she would have to prove it did so, and I find it much liklier it was working fine, she either shared on purpose or didn't want to bother to learn how to turn it off. | |
| | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: Entirely Possible If it happened to me it can happen to anybody. The only reason I know my filtering is not working is because I monitored what was being uploaded from my computer. Can't expect everyone to be as vigilant. When a program says it's not sharing something it's fair to assume it's doing what it says it will do.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
| | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Entirely Possible said by SRFireside :
If it happened to me it can happen to anybody. The only reason I know my filtering is not working is because I monitored what was being uploaded from my computer. Can't expect everyone to be as vigilant. When a program says it's not sharing something it's fair to assume it's doing what it says it will do.
If the filtering was not working, she might have a case, but she would have to prove it wasn't working. Still, if the RIAA proved she should have known (ie she was negligent) she still might be in trouble.
I get your point though, Kazaa is very sneaky about sharing stuff you would rather it not.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-23 17:56:24] | |
|
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs: | RIAA wonder how long until the RIAA trolls show up to tell us why we should pay 17.99 for cd. | |
| |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
|  Re: RIAA
We should also believe them when they say that the same toothpaste they have been selling for 35 years is, all of a sudden, NEW AND IMPROVED because their commercial says so.
--
::: Do, or do not, there is no try:::»www.kapilville.com | |
| | 
Varangian
join:2002-12-08
Collinsville, IL
| It's NOT new and improved?
but...but..that lady with the pretty white teeth said it was !
[text was edited by author 2003-08-23 18:10:49] | |
| | | 
BigDaddyChud
join:2002-11-16
Gladstone, OR
·Comcast
| Re: RIAA I was at a local store today (Fred Meyer for any northwest folks)and a couple of cd's caught my eye. Guns and Roses Appetite For Destruction and Queens Greatest hits were priced at 16.99 each. It seems to me I paid that same price 10 years ago. Not that this really matters or adds anything to this but it is frustrating. I can purchase first run dvd movies cheaper than that..
/off soap box | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| it's not about file sharing jane doe isn't trying to say file sharing is legal; she is challenging the process the RIAA is using to get alleged file sharers personal information.
I am wondering if this person happens to have a lot of money or if other organizations are paying the bills. Whoever is paying, I think this is a good thing - from what I have read, there is the possibility that this particular provision of the DMCA could be overturned if challenged.
Part of the RIAA's success so far is their ability to basically overwhelm a normal person with the threat of legal action and financial ruin. In the case of the college guys that got reamed, they would have ended up paying much more in legal defense than what they settled for.
Go, Jane, Go. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
devrandom
I got a pot, full of random stuff here
Premium
join:2003-06-28
| Do people just not know?
Heck, the amount of people opening e-mails that they should be opening is stupid. I thought that the general population knew that they weren't supposed to be opening that kind of stuff.
So if you think about it, maybe the general population really DOES NOT have any idea to use software (hence take a page from phone technical support). But with implications such at these (lawsuits and such) it is going to be dangerous to be stupid.
A couple of sample labels for your viewing pleasure:
Glock: "Point away from face"
Fireworks: "Do not light at point at face"
Linux: "Do not try to sue smart people"
SCO: "Warning, may dump stock at any time and run like hell"
--
Throwing your used Pentium into the ocean only makes the fish smarter. | |
| | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
|  Re: Do people just not know?
"Do not use microwave oven in a swimming pool"
I would have LOVED to be a fly on the wall for that court case!
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| Maybe a bit OT but worth a read Mark Cuban, founder of Broadcast.com, is also the owner of the Dallas Mavericks National Basketball Assn. team. BusinessWeek's Peter Elstrom recently talked to Cuban to get his thoughts on the state of tech. Following is an excerpt of the conversation, which is the only question that was asked about the music industry:
Q: "How are technology developments going to affect the future of music? Clearly Apple's iTunes is showing there's a business model for selling music on the Net. What does this mean for the record industry?"
A: "Technology won't, people will. One thing I learned in the NBA is that the No. 1 job of a general manager is to keep his job. There are only 30 positions where you make millions and hang around with basketball players all day.
"The same applies to the music and film industries. Until the heads of the labels start wanting to make money rather than creating controversy, tension, and excuses about why piracy is making the job so hard that no one could do it but them -- and oh by the way, they need a raise to really focus in on the fight -- the music industry is going to have a very tough time of it. It's the only industry in America where sales can fall by 10% per year, and everyone yells it's not their fault, and their boards let them get away with it.
"iTunes is a nice little step. Safe. Simple. But it's incremental. It won't change how the industry does business."
--
That's no longer true; with enough money, you can fool all the people all the time. | |
| vlovich
join:2001-12-08
| Civil not Criminal People. Please remember that these are not criminal cases. These are all civil cases. There is no reasonable doubt. There is no burden of proof.
On a side note, while choosing Kazaa as a media player may be a poor choice, there is nothing in law that I know of that explicitly states that people have to excersice good judgement when picking software to use. Kazaa is bloated for a media player. And it doesn't matter whether or not she knew it was a filesharing program. She should have disabled sharing her files (unless she did so but the RIAA somehow still managed to get a listing of her files). | |
| |
See 23 replies to this post | |
SkullBot
join:2003-05-07
Huntington Beach, CA
| It Should Have no Bearing on Her Due Process The thing is, she is entitled to due process whether or not she is innocent or guilty.
The fact that she is very plausably innocent (though quite possibly not) should serve to underscore this point to the unwashed masses whose kneejerk response is to scream for the pirate's head on a platter hours before the court papers are even filed, but it should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her contention that subpeanas being issued without court order identifying individuals for acts of potential barratory by a cartel are inappropraite and probably unconstitutional.
Copyright law is appalling in that one can be put into prison for 5 years for doing something utterly unwittingly and unknowingly. If in fact one can go to prison for utterly unwittingly and unknowingly contributing to someone elses violation of the law (who themselves may be doing so utterly unwittingly and unknowingly), then we really are living in a police state the awful powers of which we are just now waking up to.
It has been rather obvious to anyone in the digital world that copyright is the tool for oppression and censorship of those in the developed world (in the latter 20th century and 21st centuries, at least), but to think that people can be imprisoned for events to which they are peripherally bound without their knowledge is truly unthinkable. I'm not talking about ignorance of the law, which has never been an excuse, but ignorance that an action has even been committed (by oneself, or someone one has a connection to that makes them an unwitting contributor).
Certainly if this woman didn't know Kazaa was sharing her files with others on the internet, she not only wasn't aware of the copying that was going on, she wasn't even aware that she was contributing to the potential act.
Any system that would hold someone in such circumstances guilty of anything or hold them accountable for even one penny of damages, much less imprison them, is a system that needs to be scrapped immediately and, if necessary, forcefully. (to my knowledge, however, contributory copyright infringement does require knowledge of the fact, or at least "any sensible person should have known", but IANAL and I could be wrong. If I am, it is past time to emigrate or take up arms, and the former is a much higher percentage game than the latter, so I'm outta here) | |
| | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: It Should Have no Bearing on Her Due Process said by SkullBot :
Certainly if this woman didn't know Kazaa was sharing her files with others on the internet, she not only wasn't aware of the copying that was going on, she wasn't even aware that she was contributing to the potential act.
Any system that would hold someone in such circumstances guilty of anything or hold them accountable for even one penny of damages, much less imprison them, is a system that needs to be scrapped immediately and, if necessary, forcefully. (to my knowledge, however, contributory copyright infringement does require knowledge of the fact, or at least "any sensible person should have known", but IANAL and I could be wrong. If I am, it is past time to emigrate or take up arms, and the former is a much higher percentage game than the latter, so I'm outta here)
She went out of her way to download Kazaa. It is her responsiblity to make sure she is not violating the rights of others when she uses it. If this were a criminal case, intent might be important, but in a civil suit negligence will suffice, and it is negligent to use a file sharing program without ensuring you are not infringing on others rights. | |
| | | 
Freiheit 09
Cool Chicks Will Dig Me Soon
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
| Re: It Should Have no Bearing on Her Due Process if a six year old child throws an object at the neighbours kid and kills him what then?
if the same kid uses peer to peer software, what then?(don't underestimate kids)
it does not have to be a six year old,even older kids can hardly be held responsible for their actions,nor can you blame the parents who can't even turn on the computer, but had to buy them for their children school assignments and entertainment needs.
I think that the riaa does not have the right to go to the users straight,they have to lokk for the solution somewhere else | |
| | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: It Should Have no Bearing on Her Due Process said by Freiheit 09 :
if a six year old child throws an object at the neighbours kid and kills him what then?
if the same kid uses peer to peer software, what then?(don't underestimate kids)
it does not have to be a six year old,even older kids can hardly be held responsible for their actions,nor can you blame the parents who can't even turn on the computer, but had to buy them for their children school assignments and entertainment needs.
I think that the riaa does not have the right to go to the users straight,they have to lokk for the solution somewhere else
If the parent left a knife lying in easy reach of the child, and the child took it and threw it at the neighbors child, killing her, civilly, the parent may be held liable for negligence, depending on the exact circumstances. Same theory with Peer-To-Peer software; if you let your child access the Internet on your computer, you best make sure they are not doing anything illegal.
As for the RIAA having the right, I'm pretty sure they have the legal right. Ethically, or from a business perspective, you can argue (and I would agree) they are pursuing the wrong strategy, but they have the right under the law to go against file sharers. | |
| | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| said by SkullBot :
..... it should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her contention that subpeanas being issued without court order
However, a subpeana IS a court order by itself! It is a command by the court to provide information or for a person to appear at a given place and time. | |
| jimlampley
join:2002-10-24
St.Cath,On
| what a joke i cant see a court actually convicting someone of using kazaa.It makes me laugh cause its a joke.I hope the riaa feels fulfilled by going after teenagers and attempting to ruin there lives.They really scare me so much, i will never share files ever again.Hahahaha.If everyone follows my lead than most of us can throw our computers in the garbage cause thats the only thing theyre good for.Games can be played on sony type a letter with a typewriter or wordprocessor.Computers and highspeed interent wouldnt be needed without filesharing.Without filesharing i dont know anyone personally that would use a computer.Riaa needs to eat it, save there money and keep getting richer. | |
| | 
Poopsmith
That's Mr. Smith To You.
join:2003-03-12
Boulder, CO
| Re: what a joke said by jimlampley :
Without filesharing i dont know anyone personally that would use a computer.
I see we finally have the Anti-Christ of the Internet. A computer combines gaming, word processing, music/video playing, databases, programming, etc. all into ONE thing instead of tens or hundreds of things that cost you way more money than necessary. PC gaming in general has better results than console gaming, computer word processing / databasing has the ability to "save" and backup data (yes it's quite amazing), and you can play all your music and video files with a computer. Maybe you were trying to be funny. But, don't be so naive.
--
Fiber Optics is the future of high-speed internet access. Stop by the BBR Fiber Optic Forum. | |
| | | | | stang03283
join:2003-08-16
Camden, NJ
| said by jimlampley :
i cant see a court actually convicting someone of using kazaa.It makes me laugh cause its a joke.I hope the riaa feels fulfilled by going after teenagers and attempting to ruin there lives.They really scare me so much, i will never share files ever again.Hahahaha.If everyone follows my lead than most of us can throw our computers in the garbage cause thats the only thing theyre good for.Games can be played on sony type a letter with a typewriter or wordprocessor.Computers and highspeed interent wouldnt be needed without filesharing.Without filesharing i dont know anyone personally that would use a computer.Riaa needs to eat it, save there money and keep getting richer.
computers and broadband are usefull for much more then just copying music. But this is just the 1st step in trying to cencer everything we do online. We the people of the internet that use fileshareing programs need to start writting out congressmen bitching. Big companys like the mapp & riaa can pay off congressmen to change what ever laws they want but if they think noone will vote for thm they wont be payedoff. | |
| | |
Poopsmith
That's Mr. Smith To You.
join:2003-03-12
Boulder, CO | Re: After reading all the above... "Ladies and Gentleman of the jury... this is Chewbacca."
"If Chewbacca lives on Endor with 2 feet tall Ewoks, then you MUST acquit."
I'd love to see that episode again. | |
| | | 
broknsymetry
What Time Is It And Why?
Premium
join:2003-06-27
THE VOID
clubs:
| Re: After reading all the above... said by Poopsmith :
I'd love to see that episode again.
It's available on Fasttrack...Oops that would be © infringement!
I'd give you the hash, but the mod would kick me.
I am above the law!
[text was edited by author 2003-08-24 01:47:22] | |
| 
uniquecp
Where'D It Go
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Scottsdale, AZ
| The RIAA would be stupid to fight this one Well first she is not defending herself of file sharing charges, she is defending the right to not have her information released. I believe under the DCMa even the RIAA will have to cough up proof that she was actually sharing files otherwise no sub peona.
She picked the perfect defense as the RIAA allready lost this case in that just because it shares does not make it a file sharing crime, San Diego, So the RIAA has a bigger job than you would think.
Now people have to get on her side and see if the RIAA can be put in there place.
--
Things in your rearview mirror are much larger than they appear | |
| 
plk
bo may sleep in loft
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA
| How about this defense Some hacker might see this situation and create a virus etc that changes your file sharing settings for this program(s). Then you could argue you may have been affected by such a virus if one doesn't exist now.
Just a thought. Opens a whole new can of worms. | |
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: How about this defense Nah. No reason to go way out into left field on this one. First try the countersuit on privacy grounds as announced, then she can deal with the RIAA's case against her. Claiming either ignorance of handling the settings properly or something like that will be good enough.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
| |
ettttg
@rr.com
| True someone can be using someone elses computer as an ftp site without you knowing it. Then you can argue an hacker took over your computer and set up your computer to run kazaa in the background without you noticing.
maybe she can go that route too. | |
| jimraelee
join:2003-03-19
Gresham, OR
| if u buy the cd but cant copy it??? What about some new cds that u cant see the songs on pcs explorer or media player... so therefore u cant listen to them on the computer... Daughter’s avril lavigne is prime example of this... So she wants to do like we use to with the old cassettes and put only her favs on single cd... Well if my cd burner cant read the songs due to music industry splitting the fat file.... then I cant burn them on her "fav music" cd... so im am compelled to find that song online and copy to her "fav music"cd... I guess im’ bad for that RIAA come get me also... jim | |
| | | | | |
|
|
