The legal motion, filed in Washington, D.C., federal court by a "Jane Doe" Internet service subscriber, is the first from an individual whose personal information has been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America in recent months.
The RIAA has used court orders to try to identify more than 1,000 computer users it alleges have been offering copyrighted songs on file-trading networks. It plans to use the information gained to file copyright lawsuits against the individuals.
The motion was filed by a pair of attorneys who said the RIAA had gone too far in its effort to protect its online copyrights.
"This is more invasive than someone having secret access to the library books you check out or the videos you rent," Glenn Peterson, one of the attorneys, said in a statement. "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."
The Jane Doe motion comes as the first individual legal response to the RIAA's effort to sue large numbers of file swappers. It follows similar legal challenges from several Internet service providers (ISPs) and colleges, including Pacific Bell Internet Services, an SBC Communications subsidiary.
A Massachusetts federal court has already ruled that some of the group's subpoenas, submitted to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston College, had not followed the correct legal process and were therefore invalid. That court left open the possibility that the RIAA could simply re-file those subpoenas properly, however.
According to documents filed with the court, Jane Doe used the Kazaa file-swapping software as a music player largely to listen to songs she had ripped from her own CDs and to music that came pre-loaded on her family computer. She also "participated" in the Kazaa file-swapping community but tried to prevent other people from accessing files on her computer, the documents state.
On 9 July, the RIAA sent her ISP, Verizon Communications, a subpoena seeking her name, address, phone number and email address. Verizon contacted the anonymous subscriber on 15 July, telling her that the group was targeting her. After consulting with attorneys, she asked Verizon to delay providing her information, because she would fight the request.
The action filed on Thursday is still a preliminary step before settling down to fight on constitutional or other grounds. Because the RIAA document was seeking information from Verizon, not directly from her, she must first petition the court for the right to challenge the subpoena herself.
In their briefs, her attorneys argued that the RIAA's unconventional subpoena process has violated her rights to due process, privacy and anonymous association, along with her contract with Verizon.
For its part, the RIAA said that Jane Doe's motion to intervene matters little, because a federal court has already upheld the validity of the subpoena process.
"The courts have already ruled that you're not anonymous when you're publicly distributing music online," said Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president at the RIAA. "Her lawyers are trying to obtain a free pass to download or upload music online illegally. Their arguments have already been addressed by federal court and been rejected."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties group, is also working with some individuals who say their screen names have been the subject of RIAA subpoenas, but it has not yet filed any challenges with the court. However, the group said in other kinds of cases such as libel and defamation, the law allows individuals to intervene in ISP subpoenas when their privacy is at stake.
"The most important issue is that if you are innocent, if the RIAA has screwed up, it is critical that individuals have the ability to challenge the subpoenas before their identities are compromised," said Fred von Lohmann, an EFF attorney.
Talkback
No fascist people or fascist organizations represented in this commentary are representative of any PERSON or PEOPLE real or imagined.
For its part, the RIAA said that Jane Doe's
motion to intervene matters little, because a
federal court has already upheld the validity
of the subpoena process.
"The courts have already ruled that you're not
anonymous when you're publicly distributing
music online," said Matt Oppenheim, senior
vice president at the RIAA. "Her lawyers are
trying to obtain a free pass to download or
upload music online illegally. Their arguments
have already been addressed by federal court
and been rejected."
John Borland - Lone file-swapper takes on
recording industry.
Today in other news.
Thomas Paine was caught attempting to anonymously distribute a radical and dangerous document "Common Sense".
Federal courts approved the suppression of the document by the privatized, nationalistic RISS.
The RISS contend that comments within the document are previously copyrighted material by the Spaz Metal band "Metallic Democracy Destroya" Federal Red Coat Brigade REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS of the RISS and "Metallic Democracy Destroya" burst into the home of Mr. Paine, shot the children, raped his wife and arrested Mr. Paine for a future trial at an undisclosed date and location (Trial not to be televised).
Also, under the new provisions of the UnAmerican UnPatriotic Act Mr. Payne will be hanged by the neck until dead after an expedient but fair trial. The new provision define that Mr. Payne will be found guilty of attempting to subvert USSA copyright law, oh yeah and incite anonymous public terrorist dissension.
Meanwhile representing the UnAmerican UnPatriotic Act Mr. Asscroft is touring the local police state to reassure local law enforcement that the new provisions do not usurp the USSA's democratic system or undermine anyone individual freedoms or people serving UNDER the democratic government of the USSA.
The RISS is busy removing the offensive document from the legions of file sharing systems throughout the USSA. We can all rest easier with the assurance that our safety will be provided for by the representation of privatized special interest groups. Any individual caught with possession of the document will be brought before tribunal for a fair, quick, expedient trial with similar fate to Mr. Paine.
When asked what he thought he was attempting to accomplish by anonymously publishing terrorist information and violating copyright laws, Mr. Paine replied "anonymous civil disobedience by the public distribution of literature. It's only - Common Sense".
Keep going you cry baby Corporates and soon no one will want to buy all the crap you have recorded.........If your pricing wasn't so out of line maybe just maybe people would go back to buying cd's. But as for me, you can stick it along with all your corporate whoring ways!!!
YOU GO GIRL!!!!
I have a legal point of insight that may aid the lawyers who are representing the anonymous user.
I would very much like to have some way of contacting them. An email address or phone number would be most welcome.
Thanks
She's a thief, just like someone taking candy from the store. That thief doesn't have the protection she's asking for, and why should she? This isn't a something for nothing society - why SHOULD she be allowed to download music that she hasn't paid for?
Someone should show the RIAA the 2nd amendment, multiple times.
Bell Sympatico ordered me to stop using Kazaa in Canada, welcome to the free world known as Canada - Bless you, go get em!
John T.
The internet is anonymous that is that final. The only people who are allowed detailes from ISPs are the police and thats how it should stay for many reasons. This action by the RIAA is really a waste of money its all bully boy tattics and scaremongering it shouldn't be allowed the judge who allowed them to ask for internet users details is a pillock and probably got a nice brown envlope for being so. Recored companys need to look at the MP3 market for once insted of sitting on there arses paying JAYZ millions to mumble down a microphone and whinging cause there losing 2p on every sale!!!! file swapping is here to stay sorry but find a better way for people to buy yout music and they will YOU IDIOTS
Having put a staggering number of people out of work by their recording technology (perhaps some even starved to death), they now winge at technology being used against them. The difference is RIAA is rich & well organised as opposed to the disparate poor artists whose life they ruined.
Listen to the words of the RIAA, 'music is not essential to life therefore we charge whatever we like for it. Its racketeering on a grand scale & they accuse others of thieving! Lets have a fair price, taking into account cost of production & a proper living wage for artists & not personal jets all round. CD are parallel devices, so are made in a flash compared to tape which take time to record, being a serial device, so why are CD more expensive, yes it's thieving. By the way how can it be stealing when no recording is on sale due to RIAA sitting on it. Why am I in UK refused a 1950's musical CD but Americans are not, if I copy it I can't be stealing as the sale is refused so no loss!
I watched a debate between RIAA and their opposition recently, and a person who was being sued brought up the question "what is the difference between downloading the music or recording it off the radio?" the RIAA person responded that it was fine to record from the radio because it was not of a good quality. And lets not forget the RIAA is also agianst the reselling of cd via a used cd store as they say that violates the copyright as well. For you people who think the artists are not getting paid because of downloads a standard record contract pays the artist 4% per cd and 96% to the record label.
Would it be the same legal issue if I recorded the song as it streamed down from XM Radio or heck even an FM radio station and then put it up for download?
Record companies allow for free access to the people listening to the radio... I view it as very heavy handed way of gaining cash. Not to keep CD sales high.
MP3 players are selling faster than CD players. There are over 5 Petabytes (1000's of gigabytes) worth of files to download off of Kazza... Do the math and you can see this is simply going to be gurilla internet usage.
They can:
Block ports: Kazza Lite can use 64,000 ports - block them all and you'll block all internet traffic.
Arrest largest sharers of files: Most users of kazaa and P2P are using software that prevents their PCs from being searched now.
Shut down university networks: Most cities that have universities also have broadband internet - users will move to that.
Seriously, this isn't a war they can win. There is no central point to shutdown - it's a distributed infranstructure much like the internet itself. It'll reroute and reconfigure itself to work around outages.
In response to William, I don't see the point of the lawsuit justifying what she's done, its pointing the illegality of what the RIAA is doing. Privacy is the issue at hand. You're right, stealing is stealing, but this court case is about the RIAA's means of determining who those people are, which stated correctly violates personal privacy.
Anonymous coward...
Who listens to only those songs ripped from their own CDs? And innocently use Kazaa just for the media player. Get real.
I think it is good that she is protecting her privicacy. But, I don't think lying about her motives is admirable.
The concept of "THEFT" seems to be too readily used in referring to illegal file swapping. Please let us remember that no cost is incurred to the copyright holder if I make a copy of a song. There is no physical theft going on. Illegal use is just that; the copyright dictates that the owner has the right to charge what they want and how they want for their copyrighted material. What file copiers are saying is that "I'm not willing to pay that price". Obviously, with anything perceived as overpriced, people will find ways to circumvent the system.
I absolutely agree, the issue in THIS article is privacy, THAT is what she is fighting for. I do not know what the contract agreements with ISPs have in them, but it certainly seems as though the RIAA is getting priviliged information illegally (probably with "the brown envelope" to a judge, as already mentioned). It seems that it could open the door to other groups to attempt to subpoena this type of information.
Then there's the cost issue of recorded music. The only reason this suit is occurring is because these record label execs want to keep their 6 figure salaries. The average cost to mass-produce CD's is what, 3 CENTS?!? Throw on the packaging, some advertisement, shipping, etc, and we MIGHT get up to $4-5 dollars, MAYBE. Then they want to get $17-18 for it??? Does anyone really believe that artists get the majority of their record sales profit?? I think file swapping started because of the cost to purchase music, as well as the declining quality of corporate radio. And guess what, file swapping will not go away now for sure! It has been glamourized by this whole episode, it is now trendier than ever! The only thing I see coming from this is LESS purchasing of CDs from the rich, bully recording industry, and MORE file swapping.
What is the difference between the Internet and the TV and Radio Networks, Cable companies running hour after hour of music, movies, and videos over the public airwaves [public - means belonging to the people] which allows anyone with a simple video or tape recorder to just record hour after hour of the stuff.
ARE THEY NOT SHARING THE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL, INDISCRIMINATELY, TO ANY AND EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD?
All you have to do to discourage audio ripping is to analyze the mp3 compression alogrithms and come up with an alternating frequency that can disrupt the process. That will cut back about 80% of the mp3 files from being made in the future. Study the technology if you want to combat it.
What the RIAA is doing is like the police asking parents for reports of whenever their children have walked across a street without using a crosswalk so they can arrest them for jaywalking after the fact.
It is not something that should be used as a deterrent. Deterrents are methods to discourage or prevent someone from being able to do something. Just because you charge someone money and bring them to the attention of the law does not mean they won't do it again. Just my thoughts. I am sure I could come up with a better way to prevent audio ripping but I just thought that up while I was writing this.
Feel free to e-mail me with support.
Oh, and one more thing. The real hero in all of this is Verizon.
What a beautiful company. They called her to notify her that they had been ordered to give out her information. Verizon has been challenging these subpoenas and defending its customers throughout this whole thing.
EVERYONE should support Verizon for this. The other internet companies are freaking out and giving out their customers' names and information and Verizon is going to court for its customers.
My e-mail is tybynight@excite.com
feel free to agree
Maybe the best response to the RIAA going after individual users is for individual users worldwide to organize a BOYCOTT against stores that sell CD's. This would send RIAA a message that if they think they are losing money now, just watch how much money they will lose if they go after people with these Gestapo tactics.
to William
how can she be a thief when she has already obtained use by purchasing and ripping her own cd's.If she went to walmart and stole them then shared them thats stealing so shut up and look at the facts
I am not the other William.
I am the one who wrote the supportive comments, not the one about stealing. Hence the W.
Please differentiate.
The RIAA needs to realize this is not fight between them and the downloaders. They are really fighting technology. The internet (file swapping) is just an example of new technology rendering an old business model less effective. It happens all the time throughout our history. They can't stop it and it's only gone slightly underground. Check out Bit Torrent, FTP sites, IRC sites, Direct Connect. All places you can still get music and even movies too. They need to adapt and come up with a solution or face extinction. Bye Bye stubborn dinosaurs !
You go Girl!
I have stopped buying new CD's by RIAA-represented artists. Until said organization stops this Orwellian nonsense once and for all, I will acquire new music at second-hand CD stores and from the vinyl LP bins at my local thrift store.
Join me. Let's starve the RIAA out!
Want them to leave you alone? QUIT STEALING!!
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE!
wait, stealing is a crime , right?
And some how stealing music( a non-essential product) is civil disobedience?
Go ahead, scream about Corporate Bogeymen and Patriot act furvor , but when it comes down to it most of the people contesting this action by the RIA are not the downtrodden masses. They are the overfed and over endulged children of the free world.
" I want for ME , NOW."
I think the utoipian fantasy land that all of this "persecution" of pople who commit properity crimes was not permitted did exist in Russia. then like all good utopian societys it crumbled when a man with a gun(stalin, mao, pol pot, Kim IL) makes all the idealist chuckleheads bend to his will or die.
thanks for the fiction
whiners
Has the "Recording" industry shown any actual damages from file sharing? Will they come after me for letting my friends borrow my CD's ? I hope the suite wins and more join.
The Internet community is bigger and more powerful than they can imagine.
Feed the Rage.
Music on the internet is the same as radio or tv. Fair use should include the ability of people to copy for their own use any content from the internet they can find, just as you would from radio or tv. Copy for profit is a crime. Copy for personal use is not. I have purchased music that I have been introduced to on the internet. Most of my music purchases over the last few years have been influenced by the internet. I have not and will not purchase music untill the RIAA stops this tactic of intimidation. The RIAA needs to wake up to the new age we are in.
Boycott the music industry. Money is the only thing that matters to them. Show them you have the power to influence their industry and force them with your dollars to find a workable solution. The genie is out of the bottle and their arrogance and strong arm tactics will not put it back in.
can anyone explain this to me?
why is the RIAA allowed to HACK into my computer without getting a subpeona first?
I did not give the RIAA prior permission to browse the files that are located on my computer, In fact i have taken reasonable measures to stop the RIAA from accessing my computer, and because of this i feel there would be legal grounds to prosecute.
HOW THE RIAA FIGURES THEIR LOSSES.... Lets say the RIAA looks at my computer and find 1200 mp3 songs I've downloaded. They take that 1200 and divide by 12 (average songs on a cd) to get your numbers of CD's and then multiply by $13 dollars for a cd. Next they cry "We've lost $1300 !!! " ... Wrong..! Most download music I wouldn't consider buying. I would guess 90% of my mp3's were downloaded to "sample" new music. If they were deleted today I would not replace them. The internet is a new technology and they need to change with the tmes... ps... movies are being downloaded and burned to DVD's... this is just getting started !
How many times do you need to repeat the same frigging sentiments?
You go girl has been said. Variety is akin to pepper in it's location in the kitchen, ok?
SPICY!
Provide a legal and viable format for obtaining music digitally, without restrictions to its use. The RIAA should have worked to provide a viable way of obtaining music legally, then if the illegal file swapping persisted seek individual lawsuits. These new services with all the restrictions to what you can do with your music once you puchase it make the assumption that we are criminals. If buy 5 different MP3 players or make various mix cd's throughout a year or more I'd eventually be prevented from using something that I rightfully purchased. Someone needs to wake up, and understand the digital age. Hey, if they did they might make more money then they've through mainstream outlets (no middle man.) Wow, what a concept!
File-swapping is and should remain illegal. This sense of entitlement by swappers that they should be able to get something for free just because they can is ludicrous. The fact that technology today enables it doesn't make it legal; that's like saying that just because the technology now exists to steal someone's identity online, it should be legal to do so!
And, since the technology is available to enable illegal activity like file-swapping, I see no reason why technological advancements shouldn't also be used to catch and prosecute the violators. It's not an invasion of privacy when the police use forensics to identify criminals; why should it be illegal to seek them out through their computers?
All this file swapping going on and RIAA is still selling millions of records. See: http://www.riaa.com/gp/photos/default.asp
I guess they want it ALL!!!
The RIAA has sued me for sharing enough food so that thousands of my closest friends swapped loaves of bread and fish from the original 2 fish and 5 loaves that I duplicated over and over and over. I cannot afford to pay the so-called infringement fees so the RIAA will have me put to death on a tree next Friday.
"Forgive them Yall, they know not what they do."
------------------------
She's a thief, just like someone taking candy from the store. That thief doesn't have the protection she's asking for, and why should she? This isn't a something for nothing society - why SHOULD she be allowed to download music that she hasn't paid for?
------------------------
I guess whoever posted this didn't take
the time to read the full article of how
"Jane Doe" used the Kazaa software..
She said she uses it as a music player
for her OWN ripped cd's, and set it up
to prevent those files from being shared.
These P2P applications do have other functionality besides networked sharing.
I don't think the RIAA has any business
telling people what software they can
and cannot use.. But we all know
why they're doing this anyway.. The
RIAA members want to control all methods
of music distribution.. Why do you think
the Independent music community has less
issues with P2P file sharing.. Because
they see it as a distribution channel, since
the major labels pretty much control traditional distribution and airplay..
Jane Doe - to quote Chuck D - fight the
power! It's your system, and you should
be able to use the software you have
in the manner you see fit...
If I had the time and resources, I'd love
to file a friend of the plaintiff petition or something similar to support Ms. Doe..
the whole of america is behind you, girl!
"since the technology is available to enable illegal activity like file-swapping, I see no reason why technological advancements shouldn't also be used to catch and prosecute the violators"
So writes a previous commentator.
So let me explain, dunderhead: you may search my house for a specific crime after you have obtained a warrant. You may not invade my house in search of something to charge me with.
The RIAA uses property rights claims to violate our property rights. If a computer and its files is property, as software companies insist, then your private computer and its files, are as well.
Allowing the RIAA to subpoena users as they see fit is going to become quite a powerful weapon if you consider the flaws inherent in peer to peer networking. I say flaws, although it's really just a lack of security in an area where security was never envisioned to be an issue. Either way, it allows for something called "identity spoofing" which would allow, oh, say... me, to appear to be downloading files as, oh, I don't know, J. Borland (article's author). I can liter the web with requests for contraband music without J.B. ever knowing about it. The process gets more complicated, but it is possible to even trick J.B. into downloading contraband music by exploiting the application's redunancy exclusion. So this leaves us with a situation in which random users can decide they don't like J.B., do a little bit of hacking, and pin all kinds of contraband downloads on him. Now all the RIAA has to do is log J.B.'s activity and go to his provider for his name and address. Congratulations, your up on charges. Don't worry J.B., we'd have to "know you" and dislike you online, not know you irl.
Did anyone else hear about these clowns at the Direct Marketing Association? Some or their top telemarketing executives were shown to have actually singed up for the FCC's do not call list! So just in case it goes though they want to be on it, but in the meantime they are going to take it to court as unconstitutional. Nice. Anyway, reading that sparked my imagination as to whether these RIAA jokers might be doing the same thing.
Hypocrisy reigns supreme in the USSA.
Anyway, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
probably ain't a gurl anyhow.....jane doe is probably john doe and probably frank gostak from sfwest or purlgurl
A lot of Law Students and other pseudo-intellectuals like Chuck Tipton, “the Musician” (LOL sure thing) don't seem to be doing their homework, huh?
Or did they scream "the Sky Is Falling!" along with the industries when VCRs were first introduced to the mass market and warnings of Armageddon punctuated sentiments that "if people own VCRs, people will "steal” TV shows and network broadcasted movies!!..." as well?
Maybe our fellow law students will start a major lawsuit against all major public libraries as well, what with the way they sanction the frivolous sharing of copyright martial (books! CDs! CD-ROMS! VIDEOS! DVDs! AHHHHHHHH!!!)!
And just a few important points:
Whatever money the RIAA gets from suing people, file-sharing software and sites like MP3.com goes straight into THEIR pockets. The artists don’t see JACK-SPIT of that money, EVER.
WHO’S “STEALING”?
Maybe the “Law Students” out there in particular can point some actual law that identifies copyright issues with “theft,” because I can’t seem to find any, nor can the Digital Millennium Copyright Act either:
“The notion of copyright infringement as theft was clearly addressed in the 1985 Supreme Court decision of Dowling v. United States…. ‘(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use.’ ”
Nor by the Canadian Copyright Board:
“it is not required that the source or target medium be lawfully owned; using a stolen prerecorded CD to make a private copy on a stolen CD-R involves two instances of theft but no copyright infringement.”
Basically the RIAA is getting away with hilarious claims solely because the general public and “Law students” have absolutely no idea what the law really prescribes, as well as the own illegal activities the RIAA is involved with to date.
Frankly everyone can continue to take music off the net as long as they like. Sooner or later the record companies will have no money to invest in launching and promoting new acts so that there wont be any widely available new music for people to listen to. When that happens maybe all the dumb people who think they are scoring a point against the record companies will realise the consequence of their actions. File swapping of unsigned or breaking bands is a great thing as it gets music to an audience previously unachievable for bands in the past. The Aim of most unsigned acts who promote themselves in this way is presumably to get a deal so that they can make money by actually selling their music. If everyone is simply "stealing" it, why bother getting a contract at all? Yes i do believe that CD's are overpriced, but most of the money generated IS actually reinvested by promoting the new acts that do get signed so that we can all appreciate them. So what if some corporations get rich as a result. If youre that bothered about it why not go out and start your own label? This isnt some defiant anti capitalist stance the "file swappers" aretaking, its damaging the music industry, lowering the standards of music that will be produced in the future and in turn costing those of us who actually understand the music business and wish to continue listening to great bands, new and old, a great deal of money. Frankly I cant wait to see a file swapper fined the retail amount, every single track and album they have obtained would be worth. Look at it this way, very few people would go to the trouble of stealing their water, gas or electric supply. Just because the technology exists to do the same with music doesnt really mean that it makes it an OK thing to do.
SUN [Senior Unlimited Nudes] applauds "Jane Doe".
The recording industry should have created iTunes (and similar low-fee services) YEARS ago, when file-sharing started. Instead they dawdled like drugged dinosaurs; and now they are over-reacting, thus enraging the very people they'll need in the future -- students, netizens, music fans....
Bands & small recording firms should boycott the stupid RIAA, and form some alternative.
-- Senior Unlimited Nudes (SUN) of San Francisco
[http://pages.prodigy.net/seniornude]
.....
The issue is privacy. We all agree that file swappers are stealing..it's just true. But how the RIAA obtains information about us- or how anyone obtains information about us is an entirely different matter. We have criminals commiting crimes everyday- but that doens't mean the police can break into thier homes without a warrant...without some "just" procedure...otherwise we'll end up in a police state.
Let me put it this way- lets say you don't file share- do you want private businesses acting in their own interest to obtain private information about your actions on the internet? I don't think so. RIAA- find another way!! lol
the "whole of america is behind you girl" is far from the truth....
to the poster, speak for yourself and not for an entire nation. he/she is a thief, no matter which way you slice it, and while amerika is my country, much of it was founded by thieves.....
Its COPYING not STEALING!!! You cant COPY candy from the candy store
This legal challenger is a true hero. For many years we have seen this legal system abuse where some thugs, such as the RIAA, use an approach that is obviously Assault With a Deadly Weapon... the crummy legal system!
I have been told the British System prevents this by having the looser pay all.
On the other hand, piracy is stealing; when the RIAA pays composers and artists 1% though, who is the biggest pirate?
If there was a trustworth banking system, one could propose the alternative of legally collected royalties. Perhaps there is an entrepreneur out there that can make this happen!
it is TOO STEALING...ask any artist - they are angry because you all get their stuff for free and never spend a dime on CDs, etc.
Meanwhile, if you COPY someone's written word, it's plagairism, which is stealing - so in that way, you're not stealing because you're not attaching your name(s) to their music but
really, you're merely splitting hairs....
it is stealing.........ask the new hip struggling artists out there today....listen and watch them on TV speak about this very issue, and they ARE angry.