Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Excludes 3 "John Does" From RIAA Subpoena

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the sue-doe-actions dept.

The Courts 225

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of the RIAA's 'John Doe' cases targeting Boston University students, after the University wrote to the Court saying that it could not identify three of the John Does 'to a reasonable degree of technical certainty,' Judge Nancy Gertner deemed the University's letter a 'motion to quash,' and granted it, quashing the subpoena as to those defendants. In the very brief docket entry (PDF) containing her decision, she noted that 'compliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery.' There is an important lesson to be learned from this ruling: if the IT departments of the colleges and universities targeted by the RIAA would be honest, and explain to the Courts the problems with the identification and other technical issues, there is a good chance the subpoenas will be vacated. Certainly, there is now a judicial precedent for that principle. One commentator asks whether this holding 'represents the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops.'"

cancel ×

225 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's obvious that what we need is... (5, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884059)

...a new law requiring better IP tracking built into all new routers and laptops.

One things for certain in this case (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25884125)

Is that BU is pretty overated university, where rich kids got to get degrees because they couldn't get into better places, and want to be in Boston.

Re:One things for certain in this case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25884143)

Someone sounds jealous...

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (4, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884313)

Sad but true. just leaving the problem that I can change my mac address and even with username/pass systems pilfering a login/pass from a com girl or arts student in my uni would be childsplay

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (3, Interesting)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884667)

Sad but true. just leaving the problem that I can change my mac address and even with username/pass systems pilfering a login/pass from a com girl or arts student in my uni would be childsplay

I would like to see more discussion on that actually. I understand that anonymity is sort of the thing that makes the internet great.

Is having a static home address (123 Cherry Lane) preventing anonymity in the real world? Is that a valid comparison?

It seems like the point above could/should be a concern to an average user, retaining your identity?

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (4, Interesting)

SkyDude (919251) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885629)

I would like to see more discussion on that actually. I understand that anonymity is sort of the thing that makes the internet great.

I'm not so sure that total anonymity is such a great thing. It allows too many cretins to make personal attacks on people, essentially convicting someone of a perceived crime, when none may have occurred. Certainly, those who have been the victims would agree.

Is having a static home address (123 Cherry Lane) preventing anonymity in the real world? Is that a valid comparison?

When you realize that your home can be seen by anyone via Google Earth or similar service, it does call into question how private is your life. Of course, the view is not real time, but it is a snapshot and who knows what was happening that day? I think a closer comparison might be your landline telephone. It's not completely anonymous, can be traced to an physical address in most cases and there are laws that disallow the use of the phone for certain things such as uttering threats or causing a fraud to be perpetrated.

I am in no way condoning the actions of the RIAA, but until the failed business model they were assigned to protect is gone, they have the right to stop the unfettered sharing of copyrighted materials. Just like a trace that can be put on a landline phone, and the identity of the phone subscriber found, the RIAA has an obligation to its client to find out who is causing the client to lose revenue and changing one's MAC or IP address may seem like a cool way to beat it, but the law may not be on your side at this time.

Having said all of that, one has to ask how much longer the recording industry will continue this folly.

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (2, Funny)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885693)

"Is having a static home address (123 Cherry Lane) preventing anonymity in the real world?"
As long as you are not required to display it on yourself everywhere you go, no.

"Is that a valid comparison?"
Maybe, changing the MAC address of your computer to someone's else (or spoofing an IP address) to do something wrong is similiar to yelling "I am " to the police while running away from the police.

"It seems like the point above could/should be a concern to an average user, retaining your identity?"
Absolutely, but there is not much you can do before the police knocks at your door.

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884725)

Would randomly shuffling IP addresses nightly across the board and purging the previous assignment records fairly quickly be a relatively good defense against the RIAA from an administrative standpoint?

If you can't associate an IP with a person, you can't sue them. What would they do then, sue the college?

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (2, Insightful)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884875)

They very well might try, on grounds of their "impeding the investigation".

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884973)

How can you be "impeding the investigation" if you took these measures before any such investigation existed? It would be one thing to destroy evidence after being issued a subpoena but I'm not aware of any law that requires IT departments to retain logs of IP assignments.......

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (2, Insightful)

qwertphobia (825473) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885231)

You're assuming they apply logic where logic is appropriate. I think you give them too much credit.

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885235)

The problem is that then you have no leads if you really do need to track down the person associated with an IP address for some reason. "Someone hacked into your gradebook? Sorry, no clue who it may have been."

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (2, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885461)

Then I suppose you have to decide what's more important -- having the ability to track people down for other purposes or preventing your shop from being used as RIAA's evidence gathering team.

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (2, Funny)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885577)

Well, gosh, when you spin it that way, who'd let themselves be used?!

Besides, it's not about gathering evidence. The RIAA and their investigative agencies do that. Universities just provide a name.

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885647)

Well, gosh, when you spin it that way, who'd let themselves be used?!

Eh, I wasn't spinning, that's how I really see it. My job as an IT person is to make sure that the network is functional for my users. My job isn't to help RIAA build a case that will be used to bankrupt one of my users based on some thin argument like "making available". Not having logs of IP assignments (or keeping those logs for very short periods of time) isn't going to be a huge hindrance to me -- so I choose not to keep them in my shop.

The RIAA and their unlicensed investigative agencies do that

Fixed that for you :)

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886375)

The MafiAA and their illegal, unlicensed thugs do that

Fixed it for you. Gotta make sure you use the right terms. An "unlicensed investigative agency" is an oxymoron, call them what they are.

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885851)

universities can try to provide a name but if someone spoof my mac address or steals my login for the wireless by one means or another then I could be wrongly accused.

Ask the university for the name attached to a student ID and you'll get a name, ask them who was using a certain IP on a certain date and you'll get evidence of who it might have been using that IP on that date.

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (2)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885379)

I didn't say they would succeed, merely that the RIAA is clueless enough to still try to make it the universities' fault.

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (2, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885829)

I believe that the last round of funds approved by the U.S. Congress for higher education included a provision requiring any educational institution receiving federal funds to make "all reasonable efforts" to combat illegal file sharing. I am confident that the federal government would regard your suggestion as the opposite of making "reasonable efforts" to combat illegal file sharing.

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25886473)

There are a few laws in the US akin to Sarbanes-Oxley that may require it.

Re:It's obvious that what we need is... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25884707)

check out this:

http://mrfriendly.freehostia.com/

Odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25884075)

I don't see how piracy charges can ever stick when IPs don't specify identity. I sure as hell wouldn't let that slide if I were being brought to court.

Re:Odd (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25884177)

How do IPs not specify identity? If you're letting somebody else use your net connection to pirate something, you're an accessory to their infringement.

Re:Odd (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25884211)

Really? Even if they used it without your knowledge?

That's like saying that if I let my mates take my car and they go commit a crime with it (say a hit and run), I should be punished for it.

I wouldn't be classified as an accessory to their hit-and-run, so why should I be an accessory to their copyright infringement if I let them use my connection?

Re:Odd (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25884611)

Really? Even if they used it without your knowledge?

Yes really. It's your internet connection, therefore it's your responsibility. Claiming you're too stupid to use it properly isn't a valid excuse.

I love it. Every article about spam and malware is filled with comments crying about idiot lusers with open wireless connections and unpatched windows machines ruining the interweb. But along comes an RIAA lawsuit story, and the same people cry that they simply can't be responsible for their open wireless connections and unpatched windows machines.

That's like saying that if I let my mates take my car and they go commit a crime with it (say a hit and run), I should be punished for it.

I wouldn't be classified as an accessory to their hit-and-run, so why should I be an accessory to their copyright infringement if I let them use my connection?

Protip: In most places you would be charged as an accessory in that case. Unless you can prove they stole it. At the very least you could get charged with negligence.

Re:Odd (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885057)

Discussions about people being charged are meaningless. The real questions are: Would there be a conviction? And would a reasonable person interpret the law the way the courts now do? It's always possible to be sued or charged for all sorts of things that aren't really at all likely to result in a decision, at least if you can afford a lawyer.
      Did you know that technically, every single person in the U.S. who has opened a pack of cigarettes and not torn the tax seal across instead of peeling it off, even once, is guilty of a felony?

Re:Odd (2, Funny)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885061)

Protip: In most places you would be charged as an accessory in that case. Unless you can prove they stole it. At the very least you could get charged with negligence.

This is flat out bullshit. Criminally, It doesn't matter if the car was stolen or borrowed.

This analogy is bad, because it's relatively simple to determine who the operator of the car is (spoofing cars is really hard), where it is not so easy to peer through the ether and see who using a PC, or even if that PC is the one you think it is.

Re:Odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25885173)

That's like saying that if I let my mates take my car and they go commit a crime with it (say a hit and run), I should be punished for it.

I wouldn't be classified as an accessory to their hit-and-run, so why should I be an accessory to their copyright infringement if I let them use my connection?

Protip: In most places you would be charged as an accessory in that case. Unless you can prove they stole it. At the very least you could get charged with negligence.

Protip: Incorrect. Unless they were drunk and I gave them the keys, I would not be charged with anything, yet alone negligence.

Re:Odd (-1, Troll)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884813)

What happens is the case goes into discovery and the RIAA then asks the person who, if anyone, had access to their internet between certain dates.

I believe a NewYorkCountryLawyer client lied and said that no-one had access, however the RIAA finally discovered that someone did in fact have access. They then went on to ask the judge dismiss the claims because of the defendant lying in discovery.

I don't know what the judge ruled or if a ruling has even been made yet.

Re:Odd (5, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884299)

Most of my neighbours have wireless.
I could crack into them in minutes and download.
Are they supposed to be security experts now?
What about when WPA gets cracked? even the ones with a little knowhow will be open for a time.

If someone breaks into your house and commits mail fraud while you're away are you guilty because your door wasn't strong enough to keep them out?

"accessory to their infringement" is bullshit

Re:Odd (4, Insightful)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884749)

You bring up something that I think about somewhat often.

On the one hand, the Internet is incredibly useful and provides so much information and entertainment which I believe everyone SHOULD be able to access. It would be a huge loss to society, imo, for people lose this.

On the other hand, computers are complex. Networks are a complex part of computers. Security is a yet more complex part of computer networks. These are things that people spend years learning about and are constantly learning more about, yet here we are encouraging average, untrained people to stick computers which they are basically system administrators for on the largest, most complex, and hardest to secure network in the world? How much sense does that make?

Re:Odd (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885201)

The anwer is simple. The basic rule is: Survive, or die.

Those that can survive spam, trojans, virii, fraud, rootkits, scams, and the rest of it, will be the those that still use the internet in some decades. :)
(Unfortunately, this most likely includes the users that are the source of those problems too.)

The (stupid) response to this is ... (2, Insightful)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886205)

The sinister "three strike law" pushed by Sarkonazy and his subordinates creates a new category of "crime", that of "not securing properly one's connection", I shit you not. That way you can't use the defense of having been infected by a virus or having your router hax0red, it's your fault, you should have been a master sysadmin.
Nevermind that megacorporations themselves can't be fucked to secure all their systems, you, Joe SixPC, are supposed to one up PCI/DSS or FIPS whatever, or you can't be allowed to the interwebs.
Of course it's a massive pack of FAIL on so many levels, but that's what GWB's BFF has in store for us.

Re:The (stupid) response to this is ... (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886589)

oh good god...
Do they even bother talking to anyone who has done more than play minesweeper?

Re:Odd (4, Insightful)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886263)

How do IPs not specify identity?

They just don't.

Sure, you can build a system with multiple paths of registration and logging and authentication, but a majority of those processes can be spoofed or socially engineered.

If you came up to me with a subpoena asking who had IP address 192.168.1.X on this day at this time, even if I still had the logs on my DHCP server, it would take a significant amount of forensics (IE, an audit of every laptop my friends or neighbors own) to determine who the culprit was.

Re:Odd (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886357)

How do IPs not specify identity?

They just don't. Sure, you can build a system with multiple paths of registration and logging and authentication, but a majority of those processes can be spoofed or socially engineered. If you came up to me with a subpoena asking who had IP address 192.168.1.X on this day at this time, even if I still had the logs on my DHCP server, it would take a significant amount of forensics (IE, an audit of every laptop my friends or neighbors own) to determine who the culprit was.

Thank you. Now if we could only get the judges to realize this.

File stealing faggots (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25884133)

There's no defense.

at last! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25884163)

this will be the year of linux on the desktop!

Re:at last! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25884169)

agreed

There's another clear lesson here (4, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884189)

When file sharing your music and movies, use public wifi points to crush any lawsuit potential from the RIAA!

Re:There's another clear lesson here (2, Insightful)

Jeoh (1393645) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884331)

-public+any other than your own

Re:There's another clear lesson here (1)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884375)

What you're suggesting means only criminals would choose to be using public wifi points. The rest of us would need our own.

We can hope... (4, Interesting)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884389)

... but there's little hope to be found.

The suddenoutbreakofcommonsense shown on this small scale is coming too late, I fear. Because even now, ISPs are caving to big media. Phorm worms its way through many UK ISPs, apparently undiminished. A consortium of service providers have agreed to keep tabs on the situation for the record insdustry, amongst others, and send out warning letters to infringers. Usenet has been all but dropped from the roster of ISP services.

Unlike the naysayers, I always believed that the internet would remain free. After all, ISPs have always been protected as carriers, just like the postal service - and the postal service is not subject to search and seizure without due process. Nobody can open my private mail (unless it crosses borders) and check for pirated DVDs, without a really good reason to suspect that I'm pirating DVDs.

But I was wrong, and stupid, and for once in my damn life, too optimistic.

Because for every smart call like the one above, there are ten stories of companies we need to be able to trust voluntarily caving to pressure. It's too damn late.

Re:We can hope... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25884473)

A huge settlement won by an ISP's customer for participation in such kangaroo proceedings would go a long way in halting their cooperation with such proceedings. To prevent it backfiring though the right to anonymousity must come to the forefront and be preserved.

Re:We can hope... (3, Interesting)

jambox (1015589) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884985)

You may be right but I don't think it's over yet - it wouldn't be too tough to routinely encrypt most or all traffic. Anyhow, even if the media companies do manage to maim the internet by throwing lawyers at ISPs, I doubt this'll save the record companies, because the internet is only part of their problem. If I want to I can get 100+ free albums just by asking people who sit near me at work, without having to be online at all. Virtually everyone's got a cheap USB hard disk plugged into their laptops, each one of which can store enormous amounts of music.

Re:We can hope... (3, Insightful)

oreaq (817314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885637)

Of course it will not save the record companies. The problem is the damage they do while dying.

Aye (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885735)

This line in particular caught my eye:
"...the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops"

I thought, well ... hm. They just got a federal law passed creating those copyright cops, didn't they? Minor setback here, if that?

Universities still need to police their networks (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884451)

In 2001, my alma mater had 2 45mbps lines for the university and they were consistently hammered by the students doing file sharing. It got to the point that some people in the CS department joked that banging out packets across tin-cans-on-strings would be faster than using the campus network when classes were generally over for the day.

Then, the university instituted packet shapers across the network and it got usable again. Usable to the point where I didn't feel like I was on a 14.4k modem again.

If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.

Re:Universities still need to police their network (4, Informative)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884593)

Isn't that what I'm did by paying the obscene "technology fee"? What ELSE is that 1224$ going toward?

Is it hookers? Hookers and blow? You can tell me the truth. I won't be half as mad if you tell me it's hookers and blow.

Re:Universities still need to police their network (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25885095)

Unfortunately they're male hookers and.. well I won't even get into the blow. :'(

Re:Universities still need to police their network (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885627)

If you're spending $122 for a hooker and her drug habit, you're paying WAY too much.

Re:Universities still need to police their network (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885675)

Tell that to Elliot Spitzer ;)

Re:Universities still need to police their network (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886427)

I guess the citizens of New York paid too much!

(damn, I got penalized for typing too fast again. "Slow down cowboy it's been 19 seconds since you hit reply)

If you're paying $1224, you're getting shafted (2, Informative)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885723)

We paid $125/semester. Granted, our school also didn't feel the need to keep up with the Jones WRT bandwidth.

Re:Universities still need to police their network (1)

rwwyatt (963545) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885875)

You forgot blackjack. It al goes to hookers and blackjack.

Re:Universities still need to police their network (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886045)

Maybe the money's going toward Package Shaping software...

Re:Universities still need to police their network (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25886581)

It's so some douche in student government can say they managed a budget of $20m+ on their resume. I was a tech director at my university when the student government schlubs were trying to levy a tech fee. When they proposed it, I told them to compose a list of all the things it's supposed to pay for, and I'd call a special hearing to advance the interests of the tech fee. In front of various deans of the school, most of the student government, and countless regular students, I went down the list and showed that we already provided every single one of those services -- with one exception. They wanted to buy an online voting package for student government. However, we had already bought one a year before I got to the university, and even though we paid for it, student government repeatedly voted against using it.

The background behind that was that the Greeks ran student government and had made the voting process so obnoxious that virtually no independent would vote (you had a specific time and location to show up to vote, and it was usually on the other side of the campus from where your college was). The Greeks then allegedly hazed any of their members who failed to vote, and it was implied that they'd have to vote for the running Greek party.

And this was from one of the largest universities in the US (by student count).

That was one deep rabbit hole of corruption, and I'm glad I got out.

Re:Universities still need to police their network (3, Informative)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884613)

If you want to bootleg content, then pay for your own connection.

I have to disagree with your final point; in almost any University environment the students ARE paying for their connections one way or another. The terms under which they can use it, however, are usually a bit more restrictive that your standard ISP.

Re:Universities still need to police their network (5, Informative)

h4x354x0r (1367733) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884755)

I work at a U, and they charge the students, faculty, staff, departments, and everything else that has any money, an obscene amount of money for a network connection. Students ARE paying, and barely getting their money's worth, even when file sharing.

Re:Universities still need to MANAGE their network (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25885027)

Please note the change I made to your thread title. A huge difference exists in the concept and implementation of policing vs managing a network.

Policing the network requires a mindset which assumes the students will do bad things and the administration is determined to catch and punish accused systems perpetrators.

Managing the network, as your example shows, is the proper implementation of policies and configurations which allow the University community to effectively perform their work.

Managing the network is more effective and provides a more collegial atmosphere.

In my CS Department, all the information which could be used by the RIAA to track student usage of systems is NOT logged. Attempts to obtain unauthorized access are logged; but not successful authorized access. [All you security types can take your immediate objections and stuff them in your policy orifice.]

spoof::poof (5, Insightful)

lq_x_pl (822011) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884491)

The means to spoofing one's variety of e-identities (including MAC, IP, Useragent) are light years ahead of the means of tracking use!
The RIAA could demand some draconian cerberos system, but I doubt that rendering large campus networks unusable will garner them any support from the already annoyed campus IT admins. Anyway, much like the AV companies vs virus-writers, this battle is an entirely defensive one.

It's nice to see something logical leaking out of the judicial system, however.

Death Knell? (4, Interesting)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884501)

Isn't every one of these stories tagged as being the death knell for the RIAA? Don't get me wrong, I'm always glad to see the RIAA losing in these types of cases, but 'death knell for the RIAA' is getting to be 'Year for Linux on the Desktop'.

Re:Death Knell? (1, Funny)

azgard (461476) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884633)

'death knell for the RIAA' is getting to be 'Year for Linux on the Desktop'.

So, in 2009?

Re:Death Knell? (3, Insightful)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885059)

Depends how you define "the year of linux on the desktop", doesn't it?

The fastest growing segment of the PC market, netbooks, are split between Windows XP and linux. That, along with reaching mature status on important projects like web browsers, office software, media players, and Instant Messagers, is slowly making linux a viable alternative to Windows, as the netbook market is showing.

Similarly, depends how you define "death knell". I don't think any one of these bad things is going to spell the end of the RIAA crusade against their customers. I do think, however, that the slow build-up of legal ways to avoid being attacked will make their crusade more effort than it's worth. They'll go from being able to sue 3000 people in a single lawsuit to having to focus on a few, then maybe one. At that point, it's not economical to sue potential customers anymore, and they'll just have to figure out ways to make money instead.

Re:Death Knell? (1)

chaim79 (898507) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885721)

Also, the fastest growing computer company is Apple, and OS X is based off of BSD (cousin to Linux?). So Linux (BSD) is growing faster then the rest of the industry.

And just to preempt the trolls, Yes I am a Mac fan/user, own 2 of them, I also have 4 Unix boxes up and running, and Win XP in a VM.

I would Love to see someone else come up with a really nice desktop system like OS X, simply because competition is good and I don't want Mac to get to monopoly status, ever. (And no, they are not a monopoly because they control what hardware OS X will be installed on).

Re:Death Knell? (1)

mr_gorkajuice (1347383) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886187)

I would think this is exactly the parents point?
"RIAA is history!", "Linux beats Windows!", and "Duke Nuke'em Forever goes gold!" are all lies when used in an attempt to describe past/current events. It would suit the (supposedly smart) /. crowd to stop using such claims over and over again. I suppose you've all heard about the boy who cried wolf...

One thing that should be obvious, in terms of defining "the year of linux on the desktop" should be that there's only one of them. If 2008 is that year, because it's "slowly becoming a viable alternative", then what would you call the hypothetical year where Blizzard and EA decides to write their PC games for Linux instead of Windows? (my own suggestion: "the year after the year of linux on the desktop")
Just like RIAA will only die once (if at all).

Re:Death Knell? (2, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885155)

Don't worry, the release of Duke Nukem 4ever will be the death knell for the RIAA and the year of Linux on the desktop!

And ponies. Can't forget the ponies.

Re:Death Knell? (3, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885377)

Isn't every one of these stories tagged as being the death knell for the RIAA? Don't get me wrong, I'm always glad to see the RIAA losing in these types of cases, but 'death knell for the RIAA' is getting to be 'Year for Linux on the Desktop'.

Well look at it this way. If this case stands for the principle that no John Doe information can be divulged unless the ISP can identify the "alleged infringer" to a "reasonable degree of technical certainty", and that principle is followed by other courts.... very few, if any, "alleged infringers", will ever be identified.

Re:Death Knell? (1)

Thaelon (250687) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886169)

As long as people continue to buy physical CDs and DVDs, the *IAA will never go away, and neither will the labels and publishers or whatever.

However, they will experience a rather severe drop in profits since their business models for the last hundred years depended on control. Control of the ability to make copies of intangible things and distribute those corporeal anchors of intangible things for a heavy profit. The problem that they've failed to adapt to is the creation of a very easy and very accessible means to do fulfill their business role for them. They've really always been in a very tenuous position, but they were simply never willing to face the music and now they're paying the price.

Don't get me wrong, they're not going away, but they are looking a greatly diminished role (and profits) if they don't start adapting.

Change of direction (2, Interesting)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884623)

Is it just my imagination or is there a subtle change of emphasis since the US Presidential election?

This isn't flamebait (I hope) but a genuine query. I have the distinct impression that, now people know that, specifically, Cheney is on the way out, judges are perhaps slightly more willing to assert the rights of the individual and liberal institutions and politicians are starting to find their backbones. (I'm reminded of Jay Gould's joke about the biologists who discovered a creature with a very small brain and almost no backbone, only it turned out to be a fish not a member of the House.) After all, the President-Elect is an expert on the Constitution, whereas the previous Administration seems to have contained some people who were experts on bypassing it.

It is not just in the US. Would the British Labor Party have dared to increase taxes on the rich and cut consumption taxes if Obama had not proposed something similar? Would they have dared to have an attack of socialism where the banks are concerned had Bush not had to do exactly the same?

As Clinton so rightly said, it's the economy, stupid.

Re:Change of direction (3, Interesting)

infalliable (1239578) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884861)

Doubtful. The president/executive branch has very little influence on the lower courts. They weigh in on matters that will directly affect them, such as national security, but file sharing tends to be pretty low on the list of important things to the executive branch.

Biden has also a history of being pretty pro-copyright, so that would actually skew it the other way.

I think it has more to do with the courts (especially specific judges) getting sick of the RIAA.

Re:Change of direction (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885341)

After all, the President-Elect is an expert on the Constitution

Given the astonishing number of right-wingers usually to be found on /., I give it about ten minutes now before someone demands to see a birth certificate.

Re:Change of direction (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885483)

Given the astonishing number of right-wingers usually to be found on /.

You're kidding right? Slashdot is overwhelmingly left. Not that that's good/bad, but if you think slashdot is a right-wing haven, then your right/left equilibrium is completely out of touch with reality.

Re:Change of direction (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885613)

You're kidding right? Slashdot is overwhelmingly left. Not that that's good/bad, but if you think slashdot is a right-wing haven, then your right/left equilibrium is completely out of touch with reality.

Slashdot has a very strong right-wing bias. Seriously. Read any discussion along the lines of 'Unions: good thing or bad thing?' and tell me this crowd's left-wing. The consensus here seems to be 'Unions are a Bad Thing and we should all negotiate individually with the bosses, even if that means programmers end up working 80-hour weeks with unpaid overtime'. That's pretty dedicated right-wing ideology. A left-wing group would be all in favour of workers' collectives striving to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof.

Re:Change of direction (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885727)

Read any discussion along the lines of 'Unions: good thing or bad thing?' and tell me this crowd's left-wing

I think your mistaking the crowd with pudge and his friends ;) This site isn't Daily Kos by any stretch of the imagination (thank god) but I've never heard it called right-leaning before. Do you have any links to all these anti-union discussions you are thinking about?

That's pretty dedicated right-wing ideology

I don't think being skeptical about Unions is automatically a right-wing ideology. I'm a registered Democrat and I'm skeptical about Unions. I think that a lot of them started out with the best of intentions but got corrupted overtime and now value the institution more than the members.

It's libertarian (4, Insightful)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885887)

I think the problem here is poor definition of "left" vs. "right."

Ask a question pertaining to abortion, and most of the answers here are "anything goes," which sounds left-wing. Ask a question about the economy, and the answers are more "government isn't your sugar daddy," which sounds right-wing.

I think the most common /. viewpoint is best described as "libertarian," which can be summed up as "leave us alone and don't tell us what to do."

Re:It's libertarian (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886065)

I think the problem here is poor definition of "left" vs. "right." Ask a question pertaining to abortion, and most of the answers here are "anything goes," which sounds left-wing. Ask a question about the economy, and the answers are more "government isn't your sugar daddy," which sounds right-wing. I think the most common /. viewpoint is best described as "libertarian," which can be summed up as "leave us alone and don't tell us what to do."

Precisely. The tendency is towards old-fashioned American rugged individualism.

Now personally I don't see abortion as a left / right issue at all: 'left wing' to my mind is all about strong unions fighting for the workers' interests in labour relations, and a preference for high taxation to pay for comprehensive state provision of services, with the extreme left favouring wholesale nationalisation of industries. It's purely economics. I would think that a left-wing opinion on abortion might be 'The abortion clinics should be state owned and free at the point of need', while a right-wing opinion might be 'Abortions for all - who can afford them'.

Whether abortions should be allowed in the first place is a completely different question. I see no particular reason that a Communist should favour abortion, or any reason why an Ayn Rand free market fundamentalist should oppose abortion. I think the fact that the moralistic Christian tendency happens to be aligned with the right wing parties is a quirk of American politics; if you listen to European religious leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope, they often tend to preach a left-wing message of social justice and collective effort, rather than the individualistic 'devil take the hindmost' philosophy of capitalism.

Re:It's libertarian (1)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886331)

So you're defining "left" and "right" in purely economic terms. And someone else defines it differently, leading to confusion. Which was my point.

Human viewpoints come in many flavors, and labels are always oversimplifications. A graph like this [wikipedia.org] , which shows dimensions of personal and economic freedom and at least four possible viewpoints, is better, although still a simplification.

I think the fact that the moralistic Christian tendency happens to be aligned with the right wing parties is a quirk of American politics; if you listen to European religious leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope, they often tend to preach a left-wing message of social justice and collective effort, rather than the individualistic 'devil take the hindmost' philosophy of capitalism.

Now that is an interesting point, which I think Christians in the U.S. need to strongly consider.

Re:It's libertarian (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886303)

I think the problem here is poor definition of "left" vs. "right." Ask a question pertaining to abortion, and most of the answers here are "anything goes," which sounds left-wing. Ask a question about the economy, and the answers are more "government isn't your sugar daddy," which sounds right-wing. I think the most common /. viewpoint is best described as "libertarian," which can be summed up as "leave us alone and don't tell us what to do."

I think any attempt to distill a prevailing political orientation on Slashdot is doomed to failure. There is, in truth, a great deal of diversity here.

The only common thread is that each of us is right.

Re:Change of direction (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886087)

Slashdot:
Leaning left for civil rights/privacy
Leaning right when it comes to money

also:
" A left-wing group would be all in favour of workers' collectives striving to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof."
I can't believe you said that with a straight face.
Sure unions are a good thing to the extent that companies will be so afraid of getting a union in their shop they'll treat employees decently. (assuming the right to join a union without getting fired is protected like the right to get married or have gay sex[not in the workplace] without getting fired)

But they also lead to situations where there are vast numbers of completely useless blobs of fat who can't be fired because the union will kick up a fuss. Unions have a massive fucking downside that some people simply lie back and vegetate rather than work. I've seen some good unions and I've seen some bad unions. Some very very bad unions. Don't get me wrong: I've seen workplaces which really needed a union if only to let the kids working in them know that they don't have to take that kind of shit and that the situation isn't "normal".
And don't forget that a union can fuck over genuinely good people.
"WHY DOES HE GET PAID MORE THAN ME!!!! HE'S ONLY WORKED HERE 6 MONTHS!!!! I'VE WORKED HERE 10 YEARS!!! I HAVE SENORITY AND I'M THE SHOP STEWARD!!!"
"Because he is very very good at his job and all you do is sit on your fat ass playing solitare and gossiping"
"DISCRIMINATION!!! STRIKE!!!!"

Re:Change of direction (1)

CoopersPale (444672) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886091)

That's an interesting point, but I don't think a left wing view can be characterised purely by opinions on unionisation. The left wing view would include emphasis on more government involvement in social security and healthcare, and perhaps no privatisation of industries which lend themselves toward monopolies (electricity and water supply in my state in australia come to mind - pointless privatisation!)
Having said that, if you work 80 hour weeks with unpaid overtime, then you've got my sympathies; I'm a programmer and generally don't work more than half that.

Re:Change of direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25885763)

Given the astonishing number of right-wingers usually to be found on /.

You must be new here. Or just illiterate. Slashdot posters are very left-wing on average. Seriously.

Re:Change of direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25886019)

"After all, the President-Elect is an expert on the Constitution"

Uhm... you're joking, right? Have you ever read any of his papers?

The man is not an "expert" on the Constitution, except that he hates it and has already promised to break the oath of office before he has even taken it.

Don't get carried away (3, Interesting)

The Second Horseman (121958) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884703)

Via other legislation, it looks like colleges and universities in the US are going to be expected to take active steps - training and education, and likely technical as well - to curb piracy or else risk losing federal funding. It's part of the "Higher Education Opportunity Act". They're now in the "rulemaking" phase, but I find it hard to believe that the Department of Education is going to be particularly accommodating, and I'm not confident that the new administration will be substantially better than the old on this issue. I think this case is going to give the RIAA/MPAA and their allies in congress something to point at to say "See! We need more protection".

If we're required to do blocking and monitoring, the BU defense won't hold, because we'll have the data. At this point, the biggest factor is the delay. If you're a university buying service through a provider, and the letter goes to them first, it takes at least a week, often more, to get to you. By that point, there's usually not even any reason to look for the torrent they're complaining about.

Re:Don't get carried away (4, Insightful)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885237)

If we're required to do blocking and monitoring, the BU defense won't hold, because we'll have the data.

I wonder what kind of ridiculous fine structure or penalties there will be for not logging what you monitor?

How about a well documented disk failure event on the file system containing all the logs? "Sorry, Your Honor, we logged everything, and then the disk failed."

Are we going to be legislated into complete backup strategies? I doubt it.

I think the Senate/Obama stance is that bad business models can be allowed to fail (See GM, Ford, Chryseler). It that holds true, the business model of the RIAA/Big 4, which was a sinking ship before Sep08, will certainly have some scrutiny before legislation. Couple that with overwhelming projections of a poor buying season, and I can't see how the RIAA has much of a leg to stand on here.

Re:Don't get carried away (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885749)

active steps - training and education, and likely technical as well - to curb piracy or else risk losing federal funding

The universities are sending warships to Somalia?

Tagged:'Outbreakofcommonsense?!?!?' *needed* (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884869)

" One commentator asks whether this holding 'represents the death knell to some, if not all, of the RIAA's efforts to use American university staff as copyright cops.'"

We can only hope, and keep fighting this kind of tyranny being hoisted upon us by the RIAA.

I do not think copyright 'law' needs tossed out, as it seems to be the baby in the bathwater, but there is some disruptive changes needed.**

**Disruptive to current models of music distribution, and if you think the current 'woolly mammoths' won't go to extinction without fighting tooth-n-nail, then you have not been 'out there in the real world' lately!**

Bring back copyright law/legislation to original/sane levels, and I think that most people will abide/be okay with that.

On the other hand, it has gone on long enough that I don't know if changes/reform will make a difference anymore....everyone is getting used to the idea that you can go to ThePirateBay* as a last resort, or less painful route....the line becomes more grey and much broader as time goes on.

*Not to single out TPB, but they are the most 'visible' lately*

Currently, I am leaning towards the 'cat has been let out of the bag' camp. Ever tried herding cats in a burning barn?
Ask the RIAA how that works out if you're curious. *hint==NOT!*

Personally, and for the /. record, the last music I bought was a CD I had to special order through Hasting's Books and Records [gohastings.com] , and that was the only one out of four that I wanted that was still being published and/or available.

Out of the other three, one had a *shudder* myspace page, but we could never connect...tried for over 3 months, the other two, well TPB and Ktorrent fixed that. The first, I just finally gave up and scrubbed the mission due to frustration, and moved on.

Since then, I have avoided any RIAA produced music. I have several friends in indie (not signed to labels) bands that have pointed me to some really kick-butt stuff where I can either pay the artist/band, or it's free-legally and ethically.

I feel FAR from deprived, especially after listening to the current pop radio stations when riding along with someone else.

Re:Tagged:'Outbreakofcommonsense?!?!?' *needed* (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25884987)

...Since then, I have avoided any RIAA produced music. I have several friends in indie (not signed to labels) bands that have pointed me to some really kick-butt stuff where I can either pay the artist/band, or it's free-legally and ethically.

I feel FAR from deprived, especially after listening to the current pop radio stations when riding along with someone else.

I've started doing the same as of late, getting a good bit of my music off of sites like Jamendo, as well as avoiding MAFIAA labels like the plague. (They ignore my favorite genres anyway.) As well, I've turned my friends on to those alternatives, and they've spread the word as well. As a last resort, I just avoid music altogether. If I don't have my mp3 player plugged in while I'm in the car, the radio's tuned to either talk radio or NPR. The same goes for my Linux box's FM tuner. At least the talk radio will rot my brain a little less than MAFIAA-promoted garbage. (Whenever we get an industrial/electro station down here, then maybe my tuner will budge.)

Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy (5, Insightful)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25884937)

This was, by my count, slashdot article #921431008 which slants positively for the "less power for rightsholders" side. I'm still waiting for slashdot article #1 where somebody presents a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightsholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers.

Of course, it would be so very socially awkward to point out that virtually all policies slashdot have supported so far amount to in effect a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy, where the poor who are for whatever reason unable to use a p2p service and thus purchase CDs subsidize the entertainment of those who otherwise generally can afford it. Oh no. Pointing out such things is just not cool.

Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy (5, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885389)

I'm still waiting for slashdot article #1 where somebody presents a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightsholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers.

Sorry bud, but it ain't gonna happen. The "rightsholders" are the labels - this is only one of many reforms that need to be made. The recording artists should own copyright; they should NOT be "works for hire".

Copyright lengths need to be brought back down to sane levels. I should NOT have to pay for a Jimi Hendrix download.

Copyrights need to be registered again. Automatic granting of copyright is madness.

Out of print works should not be covered by copyright.

it would be so very socially awkward to point out that virtually all policies slashdot have supported so far amount to in effect a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy

I don't know where you got the idea that Sony-BMI executives (who actually own the copyrights) are poor and the downloaders are wealthy.

I suggest you read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture [free-culture.cc] . The following quote is abridged:

File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these different kinds into four types.

A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content.

B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it.

C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.

D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.

Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful type A sharing is.

While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a good example.

The fact is, the labels are on the wrong side of history. Independant (non-RIAA) artists have learned to use the internet to their advantage. The RIAA wants to use copyright law to kill the independant competetion, who use Lessig's "D" as a means of promotion.

It isn't about music lovers "stealing" music -- study after study shows that "pirates" spend more money on music than non-pirates. It's about squashing competetion. The RIAA has radio, the indies have P2P, so the RIAA wants to kill P2P.

Nobody outside the industry who understands the situation is on the RIAA's side.

Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25886283)

For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.

He understates the case: for content not sold, this is actually a positive for society in a way that selling a collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector is not.

Consider how many old works have vanished from societal memory entirely or near-entirely, because their original medium (cellulose, paper with acids, ink with a bad lifespan, etc) has withered while they were "stored for safekeeping." Some of these are even technically "within copyright" still. I've seen one estimate that says 10% of the works in the Library of Congress are probably unreadable today, because the paper will have gone too fragile and the ink faded too far due to age.

Consider all the lost, arguably great works that are technically still "under copyright" even though no known copy exists. Early episodes of Doctor Who [wikipedia.org] for one great example.

The fix for this is simple:

(a) make copyright SHORT on par with patent and (b) require copyright to be re-registered on a proper basis (say, every 5 years)
(c) make works enter the commons, say, 5 years after they are "out of print."
(d) Respect the rights of Fair Use (time-shifting, space-shifting, backup) in law and practice.

IF we can make these changes, society benefits because then we do not lose these works. They stand a much greater likelihood of being preserved.

If I simply sell my old 1960s LP's to a collector, they go into a bin and are never heard again. If I record and digitize those 1960s LP's to a lossless format, and then put them out on a torrent, then there are multiple copies of the experience of the music as originally recorded available to the commons, and the chance of its being lost forever is much, much slimmer.

Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25886423)

What an absolutely fantastic bit of the ol' explication.

Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy (1)

Binestar (28861) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885405)

You suck at counting.

Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy (4, Interesting)

Tiberius_Fel (770739) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885475)

If you have a solution that is a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and the possibilities that they bring AND the rights of the rightholders to be fairly compensated and to reasonably punish/recover from wrongdoers, I for one would be interested in hearing it.

Here's the thing about copyright in the digital age. For software, music, videos, the marginal (per additional copy) cost is zero. Now, given that it takes no effort to copy it, and anybody can do it in his own home (or his parents' I suppose), how can you realistically stop that, without invading everyone's privacy? How can you even really know that they're doing it? Same thing with downloading it: the only way to know is to invade the privacy of the people by monitoring all their transfers. And even then, it's an imperfect system. How do you know what they have the right to down/upload? How do you deal with authorization? What about false positives? False negatives?

Also, your argument about how it's a regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy is a bit off-track. If the government(s) imposed a tax on everyone that was used to compensate artists for the creation, it will most likely be nowhere near as draconian as you make it seem. It's not like the government will charge a flat tax on everyone. Presumably, like other "progressive" taxes, it will be charged at a percentage, based on your ability to pay. Thus rich people will pay more and poor people will pay less. There will most likely be a group who pays nothing into this at all, like with income tax. Also, is it really a transfer to the wealthy? I know when you think of artists, you imagine the pop sensation of the day who has millions and millions of dollars, but there are still lots of "starving artists" out there.

You're making the issue too emotionally charged by using terms like "regressive wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy", which a lot of people emotionally oppose. But it's not really like that.

Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy (3, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885493)

This was (a) a news report about a judge quashing a subpoena, (b) followed by a quotation of an opinion by a commentator. There was no slant in the news, and it provides a link to the actual document. The expression of opinion was clearly denominated as such. I'm under no obligation to come up with a "plan". I have no training as a "planner", I'm a litigation lawyer. Me coming up with a 'plan' would be like asking me to do your plumbing.... I don't think you'd be very happy with the end result.

Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885579)

Me coming up with a 'plan' would be like asking me to do your plumbing

Ray the plumber? Is that you? ;)

Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy (1)

Tiberius_Fel (770739) | more than 5 years ago | (#25885617)

Unfortunately, some people just have an axe to grind of some sort, and they will happily throw their opinion into any thread that's even vaguely related to their pet topic.

Also, far too many people live by "disagree with me = bias". But I guess as a lawyer, you deal with all sorts, so it's probably not necessary for me to tell you that...

Re:Slashdot Article #921431008 supporting piracy (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 5 years ago | (#25886445)

And I'm still waiting for a copyright law that presents a decent and fair plan that both acknowledges new technologies and possibilities that they bring.

Poor people don't purchase cds. If they don't have a computer or can't use p2p they get a copied cd from their friends. Sneakernet. Who do you think seeds these downloads? Someone, somewhere had to buy the cd to begin with. If you ask me it's the exact opposite of what you say. It is robin hood in effect. (minus the fact that there is no money involved and no real harm)

The RIAA are the wrongdoers. The absurd copyright laws are the wrongdoers. The douchebag artists that still charge $17 (+tax and/or shipping) for a fucking cd (26 year old technology) are the wrongdoers. p2p users are not the wrong doers.

nice to see a U standing up for students (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25886531)

The remainder of universities that just rolled over and did the RIAA's bidding should be ashamed

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>