MIT Students Fighting The RIAA

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A total of nineteen MIT students were hit with settlement letters in the latest round of lawsuit threats from the RIAA. That’s the bad news. The good news is that at least one of the students plans on fighting the RIAA. Now, if he could just get the other 18 students to join him…wouldn’t that be something?

One MIT student who has received a letter from the RIAA said last week that he planned not to settle and that he would fight the RIAA’s attempts to learn his identity. To date, no MIT students are known to have gone to court — all have paid the pre-litigation settlement or have settled after the RIAA has sent a subpoena to MIT.
Click to expand...
 
let's hope it goes better than the lady in Minnesota that "lost" her harddrive after she got the IM from the RIAA
 
the RIAA always bets that people will not fight and agree to their pre-litigation settlement. lets face it who has the money, patience and time to go up against a behemoth such as the RIAA and their army of lawyers? i am sure Kyle knows well the headache, heartache and frustration of litigation and court (NO not with the RIAA silly rabbit), but cost of a lawyer alone is prohibitive to most people, and these are students.

and even when a judge dismisses a RIAA's suit with prejudice. the RIAA simply appeals to a higher court rather than pay the atty fees as awarded by the court.

well lets hope a student from MIT can get the others to band together with them and not lay down to a bully.

i will say it again, i wish the RIAA would go after Harvard.
 
it's MIT, the battle in court is one thing... but remember, these are the students who could most likely wipe out any system the RIAA has attached to the internet.

i'd be interested to see how much data loss will incur should those students lose a court case...though to be honest I would have figured that hackers would have been tearing apart anything RIAA they could get their hands on for ages now. Nothing would make me happier than the RIAA magically having all its bank accounts and on soil funds disappear due to "computer error"
 
If u ask me the Retards inside americas asshole(RIAA) really are the gayest people on earth, i betcha every single one of the people who work for them are prob people like axxo on there free time.
 
Manaknight said:
it's MIT, the battle in court is one thing... but remember, these are the students who could most likely wipe out any system the RIAA has attached to the internet.

i'd be interested to see how much data loss will incur should those students lose a court case...though to be honest I would have figured that hackers would have been tearing apart anything RIAA they could get their hands on for ages now. Nothing would make me happier than the RIAA magically having all its bank accounts and on soil funds disappear due to "computer error"
Click to expand...


Dude, I would finance that.
 
Manaknight said:
it's MIT, the battle in court is one thing... but remember, these are the students who could most likely wipe out any system the RIAA has attached to the internet.

i'd be interested to see how much data loss will incur should those students lose a court case...though to be honest I would have figured that hackers would have been tearing apart anything RIAA they could get their hands on for ages now. Nothing would make me happier than the RIAA magically having all its bank accounts and on soil funds disappear due to "computer error"
Click to expand...



Their site gets defaced frequently, I believe it just happened a couple of days ago.
 
Hmmm given the profound history of techno-babble, music diarrhea, shapeshifting, adolescent drama the RIAA has used in the past (seen in web postings, court documents, etc, etc), I'm VERY interested to see what an MIT student(s) can produce to offset the techniques / practices of the RIAA.

Wow.. I'm impressed over my intro statement.. ::chuckles::
 
This is just a question because Im not in the US, but I do know a little abot the RIAA. Why doesnt your government not put a stop to this "EXSTORTION" because that is what it is. You vote these people into power that make your laws, but they only seem enforce or not enforce the laws that pad their pockets. You live in the country with the government " by the people for the people" or is it .
 
Leadsled said:
This is just a question because Im not in the US, but I do know a little abot the RIAA. Why doesnt your government not put a stop to this "EXSTORTION" because that is what it is. You vote these people into power that make your laws, but they only seem enforce or not enforce the laws that pad their pockets. You live in the country with the government " by the people for the people" or is it .
Click to expand...

Because the RIAA has had it's hands in the pockets of various senators for some time now.

That and crime is perfectly fine when it's done by a corporation, at least until it hits the prime-time news that is.

that said, what's really needed is a media war. Destroy their credibility on a corporate and personal level...make the job so undesirable that nobody wants to work for them...that's when you win. So far, they have been doing a great job at that through speaking out of both sides of their mouths, but we need the media coverage of this to let the nation know what kind of idiots these groups really are.
 
Leadsled said:
This is just a question because Im not in the US, but I do know a little abot the RIAA. Why doesnt your government not put a stop to this "EXSTORTION" because that is what it is. You vote these people into power that make your laws, but they only seem enforce or not enforce the laws that pad their pockets. You live in the country with the government " by the people for the people" or is it .
Click to expand...

I agree it is exstortion and they know it. They know these people their going after don't have the money to pay lawyer fees and thus most of them will just pay up because they have no choice.

The justice system in this country is screwed up. Their still breaking the law, but this stuff needs to be taken care of by the people or enforce the law, not a corporation.
 
Leadsled said:
This is just a question because Im not in the US, but I do know a little abot the RIAA. Why doesnt your government not put a stop to this "EXSTORTION" because that is what it is. You vote these people into power that make your laws, but they only seem enforce or not enforce the laws that pad their pockets. You live in the country with the government " by the people for the people" or is it .
Click to expand...

The RIAA is just taking advantage of the court system already in place. There are no laws (other than IP laws) that allow the RIAA, but there are no laws that disallow them either. They are just another organization that files lawsuits. Not allowing them to do that would require not allowing legitimate lawsuits as well.

Many people think the RIAA has ties with the government but it does not. It simply threatens to sue (legal, as it should be) students for piracy (illegal, as it should be), and most people settle our of fear of losing the suit.

They could do the same thing in many other countries as well. It's just that the US court system makes lawsuits easier. The corrupt organization is the RIAA for abusing the court system, not the US for providing the court system. It's the same argument everyone here uses when MySpace is blamed for kidnapping or video games are blamed for violence.

And all of the other wild accusations of the US government ("The justice system in this country is screwed up", "Because the RIAA has had it's hands in the pockets of various senators for some time now", "That and crime is perfectly fine when it's done by a corporation") are just the American tendency to complain about everything, IMO.
 
This really shows the degree that the legal system in this country panders to special interests. The copyright laws and statutory damage amounts currently being used by the RIAA were never intended by the legislature to be used against average citizens. There is no rational relationship between the damages awarded in lawsuits and the damages incurred by the industry. The actual damages can't exceed the retail value of what is being DLed/ULed multiplied by the number of copies DLed/ULed, so 99%+ of the damages being handed out are punitive in nature.

This is patently ridiculous if you look at other areas of law and the requirements that must be met to get punitive damages. Judges are generally very hesitant to give large punitive awards (the crazy cases you see in the news make the news because they are such large deviations from the norm).

Of course, the laws stand as they are unamended because the group being disadvantaged is one that rarely votes and has little political power, whereas the group benefiting is a large monied interest. Pretty similar to how immense amounts of wealth are being siphoned away from our generation to pay for entitlements to the old.
 
JCDenton said:
This really shows the degree that the legal system in this country panders to special interests. The copyright laws and statutory damage amounts currently being used by the RIAA were never intended by the legislature to be used against average citizens. There is no rational relationship between the damages awarded in lawsuits and the damages incurred by the industry. The actual damages can't exceed the retail value of what is being DLed/ULed multiplied by the number of copies DLed/ULed, so 99%+ of the damages being handed out are punitive in nature.

This is patently ridiculous if you look at other areas of law and the requirements that must be met to get punitive damages. Judges are generally very hesitant to give large punitive awards (the crazy cases you see in the news make the news because they are such large deviations from the norm).

Of course, the laws stand as they are unamended because the group being disadvantaged is one that rarely votes and has little political power, whereas the group benefiting is a large monied interest. Pretty similar to how immense amounts of wealth are being siphoned away from our generation to pay for entitlements to the old.
Click to expand...

I agree that the money amounts of these lawsuits are way too high. The damages should be much lower than what they are with maybe a few thousand dollars as a future deterrent.

But the lawsuits themselves are legitimate. Copyright infringement is illegal. Someone copying music who is charged with copyright infringement doesn't have much of a defense.

It's the RIAA who decides to tattle on everyone and scare them into settlement to further increase the wealth of recording studio executives.

Even if the court system did change, the government still can't do anything about people submitting to private settlements.
 
HOCP4ME said:
I agree that the money amounts of these lawsuits are way too high. The damages should be much lower than what they are with maybe a few thousand dollars as a future deterrent.

But the lawsuits themselves are legitimate. Copyright infringement is illegal. Someone copying music who is charged with copyright infringement doesn't have much of a defense.

It's the RIAA who decides to tattle on everyone and scare them into settlement to further increase the wealth of recording studio executives.

Even if the court system did change, the government still can't do anything about people submitting to private settlements.
Click to expand...

here is the thing though...

i get copyright infringement is illegal, well i sort of do even though i disagree with it. but what about the lack of quality music, the corporate created music acts that are pushed on us by the media as "cool". even still all costs considered 15-18 dollars for a cd is rediculous, as is the cut given to the people who actually create the music... as noted earlier in this thread extortion to my knowledge is illegal, so while two wrongs only rarely make a right, why aren't we burning down their hq and flogging these people in the street for their crimes....i mean seriously, they want to sue individuals, why don't we sue the corporate heads as individuals, maybe that would stop it...
 
Nick_Leo said:
If u ask me the Retards inside americas asshole(RIAA) really are the gayest people on earth, i betcha every single one of the people who work for them are prob people like axxo on there free time.
Click to expand...

I hope so, as I have an asshole ex-buddy who swears by this axxo nub and his harddrive/s are full of *.*axxo.rar files.

Although I wouldnt like the dude to get fuked up, it would make me smile :D
 
Manaknight said:
here is the thing though...

i get copyright infringement is illegal, well i sort of do even though i disagree with it. but what about the lack of quality music, the corporate created music acts that are pushed on us by the media as "cool". even still all costs considered 15-18 dollars for a cd is rediculous, as is the cut given to the people who actually create the music... as noted earlier in this thread extortion to my knowledge is illegal, so while two wrongs only rarely make a right, why aren't we burning down their hq and flogging these people in the street for their crimes....i mean seriously, they want to sue individuals, why don't we sue the corporate heads as individuals, maybe that would stop it...
Click to expand...

I completely agree about the low quality of most music and the unfair profit split between record company and artist. And there are many legal ways of dealing with that problem.

If you don't think music is worth its price, don't buy it. But don't steal it, either. If you take the time to steal it, you obviously think its worth something. And I seriously doubt you send the record companies a check saying "I pirated a CD and think its worth $5, here you go". Or, you download something to see if you like it, end up liking it, and conveniently forget to buy it legally.

If you think a piece of music is crap, don't buy it. Delete it from your hard drive if you downloaded it. If you don't like the music there is no reason to keep it.

If you like music but want the actual artist to get a fair share of the money, buy the songs you like online rather than buying an entire overpriced CD. The record companies get much less money that way. Then, take the money you saved and donate it directly to the artists or spend it on a concert. Also, look for independent artists online without a label.

If you want to try music before you buy it, that's perfectly fine. Download the song, listen to it for a few days, and decide if you like it. If you don't, delete it; you have no reason to keep it. If you do, delete it and buy a legal version for $1. Otherwise, you may (intentionally or not) forget to buy it later. It's just like going to a music store and putting on the headphones to try out music. You can listen to the music in the store, but you can't bring home a CD and promise to pay for it later if you like it.

If you are pirating to avoid paying the record companies or pirating to avoid paying for crappy music, the above solutions work much better than pirating. The artists get more money and you get to try music without keeping crime evidence on your hard drive. If you are pirating to avoid paying for something that costs money, you are stealing.
 
Manaknight said:
i get copyright infringement is illegal, well i sort of do even though i disagree with it.
Click to expand...
You DISAGREE with the fact that people who produce text, audio and video should be compensated for their work? You can't both compensate those people AND disagree with the concept of copyright infringement at the same time.

Go spend months writing text for a website, then give me the address and I'll make a carbon copy of your text on my own website. Then we'll talk again about who DISAGREES with WHAT.
 
Icheb said:
You DISAGREE with the fact that people who produce text, audio and video should be compensated for their work? You can't both compensate those people AND disagree with the concept of copyright infringement at the same time.
Click to expand...

One can agree with the general principle of copyright without agreeing with the horrid way it's implemented in this country (and others by treaty). If copyright were 20 years like patents (for music and software, maybe longer for books that are less burst-popularity focused and get outdated slower, no longer than 50 years period though), and gave the copyright owner no rights to control how it's used once it's been licensed other than to forbid copying (other than much broader fair use statutes than we have now), I think that would be fair. Then it would be truly about fair compensation, not raw control.

Car dealerships have no business telling you what you can and can't do with your car once it's been sold (beyond rules of the road that almost universally have to do with safety, not the profit of car-makers), and neither do creators of works of copyright once it's been licensed. That would still let text/audio/video producers be properly compensated, but not be turned into the eternal-monopoly/legal-bludgeon it is today. If copyright term were significantly reduced and fair use broadened, there would be much less cause to "pirate", and much less sympathy for those that still would under such a regime.
 
HOCP4ME said:
I agree that the money amounts of these lawsuits are way too high. The damages should be much lower than what they are with maybe a few thousand dollars as a future deterrent.

But the lawsuits themselves are legitimate. Copyright infringement is illegal. Someone copying music who is charged with copyright infringement doesn't have much of a defense.

It's the RIAA who decides to tattle on everyone and scare them into settlement to further increase the wealth of recording studio executives.

Even if the court system did change, the government still can't do anything about people submitting to private settlements.
Click to expand...

People are essentially forced to submit to private settlements due to the statutory damage system. The RIAA is able to get judgements in the millions without having to establish that it actually suffered millions of dollars of damages. All it has to show is that the infringment occurred.

To see how silly the law is, consider what would happen if someone hijacked a shipment truck full of CDs. That person would only be on the hook for actual damages, which would be far less than the statutory damages for illegally downloading a CD.
 
JCDenton said:
People are essentially forced to submit to private settlements due to the statutory damage system. The RIAA is able to get judgements in the millions without having to establish that it actually suffered millions of dollars of damages. All it has to show is that the infringment occurred.

To see how silly the law is, consider what would happen if someone hijacked a shipment truck full of CDs. That person would only be on the hook for actual damages, which would be far less than the statutory damages for illegally downloading a CD.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that the dollar amounts of the lawsuits are way too high.
 
I'm surprised anonymous hasn't gone after RIAA and MPAA yet. Perhaps one day they will, perhaps one day they will.
 
farfromhome said:
One can agree with the general principle of copyright without agreeing with the horrid way it's implemented in this country (and others by treaty). If copyright were 20 years like patents (for music and software, maybe longer for books that are less burst-popularity focused and get outdated slower, no longer than 50 years period though), and gave the copyright owner no rights to control how it's used once it's been licensed other than to forbid copying (other than much broader fair use statutes than we have now), I think that would be fair. Then it would be truly about fair compensation, not raw control.
Click to expand...
If you don't like their terms, don't buy it. And don't pirate it either. I live by that rule and for some reason I'm still alive. Weird.
 
Icheb said:
If you don't like their terms, don't buy it. And don't pirate it either. I live by that rule and for some reason I'm still alive. Weird.
Click to expand...

QFT. For example, I think we can all agree that Best Buy's computers are overpriced. Do you:

A. Buy or build your computers using much cheaper online retailers

or

B. Break into Best Buy and steal the computers.
 
HOCP4ME said:
I completely agree about the low quality of most music and the unfair profit split between record company and artist. And there are many legal ways of dealing with that problem.

If you don't think music is worth its price, don't buy it. But don't steal it, either. If you take the time to steal it, you obviously think its worth something. And I seriously doubt you send the record companies a check saying "I pirated a CD and think its worth $5, here you go". Or, you download something to see if you like it, end up liking it, and conveniently forget to buy it legally.

If you think a piece of music is crap, don't buy it. Delete it from your hard drive if you downloaded it. If you don't like the music there is no reason to keep it.

If you like music but want the actual artist to get a fair share of the money, buy the songs you like online rather than buying an entire overpriced CD. The record companies get much less money that way. Then, take the money you saved and donate it directly to the artists or spend it on a concert. Also, look for independent artists online without a label.

If you want to try music before you buy it, that's perfectly fine. Download the song, listen to it for a few days, and decide if you like it. If you don't, delete it; you have no reason to keep it. If you do, delete it and buy a legal version for $1. Otherwise, you may (intentionally or not) forget to buy it later. It's just like going to a music store and putting on the headphones to try out music. You can listen to the music in the store, but you can't bring home a CD and promise to pay for it later if you like it.

If you are pirating to avoid paying the record companies or pirating to avoid paying for crappy music, the above solutions work much better than pirating. The artists get more money and you get to try music without keeping crime evidence on your hard drive. If you are pirating to avoid paying for something that costs money, you are stealing.
Click to expand...

what about bootleg remixes of songs and whatnot that doesnt appear on itunes or whatever.. or what about the fact i have like 30000 tracks on my computer at home @ $1 each thats nearly twice my annual income.. i buy music if i REALLY like it (esp by independant artist), but im probably not in any danger of being sued because i dont listen to all that top 40 pop bs so there's not one justin tinkerbell or britney spears song on my computer, i hate radio music.
 
gaspah said:
what about bootleg remixes of songs and whatnot that doesnt appear on itunes or whatever.. or what about the fact i have like 30000 tracks on my computer at home @ $1 each thats nearly twice my annual income.. i buy music if i REALLY like it (esp by independant artist), but im probably not in any danger of being sued because i dont listen to all that top 40 pop bs so there's not one justin tinkerbell or britney spears song on my computer, i hate radio music.
Click to expand...

Well, if the music isn't for sale then I don't think the RIAA cares about it.

As for the music that is for sale; if you can't afford it, you can't have it. That's how it works with everything. Even if something is overpriced, you still can't have it unless you can pay for it. See my above example.
 
HOCP4ME said:
QFT. For example, I think we can all agree that Best Buy's computers are overpriced. Do you:

A. Buy or build your computers using much cheaper online retailers

or

B. Break into Best Buy and steal the computers.
Click to expand...


Don't forget C & D.

C: Buy a pre-built straight from the manufacturer.

D: Buy a referb that has no damage for much less.
 
Well, if the music isn't for sale then I don't think the RIAA cares about it.

its remixes on music for sale...

i don't think i'm going to change my filesharing manor... its just music
 
Icheb said:
If you don't like their terms, don't buy it. And don't pirate it either. I live by that rule and for some reason I'm still alive. Weird.
Click to expand...

Completely missing the point. I don't pirate, but I can understand to some degree those that do. Being holier-than-thou will not stop them. Draconian punishments will not stop them. It's yin and yang. The more the fist is closed tighter, the more that will slip through their grasp. Being more reasonable and drastically scaling back copyright law to the point it is again reasonable will stop most of them, and then it will be easier to get the hardcore pirates.

And then there is simply the principle of the thing. A contract, ideally, should be a "meeting of the minds" between two parties of equal power. If there is a difference in power, there will almost always be an element of coercion involved. Whether something is needed to live or is merely a luxury is irrelevant. there can still be coercion involved (how many people, realistically, live on the bare essentials of life? nobody who posts on this forum...). With strong consumer protection laws in place, that can be alleviated somewhat, but all too often, those in power capitulate to big business interests (money talks, and consumers are too disorganized to fight back). So tell me again why the foxes be allowed to have complete control of the hen house...? If it's a contract between two similar sized businesses, sure, but not between a big business and a consumer. That should be governed by laws that fairly balance the interests of the businesses and the consumers, not one-sided contracts that are made purely for the benefit of the business. If you believe that simply "not buying" will stop it, you live in a fantasy world.

Even if you believe that for some strange reason copyright owners should have some kind of divine right to set terms and conditions on what you do with what they sell you after they have sold (ahem, licensed) it to you beyond the prohibition to copy, do you really believe that the life+70 years or 95 years is sensible? You did not even respond to my suggestions of shorter copyright terms.
 
this clears up what i'm getting at, the principle is fine, i create something original to sell and someone buys it for a perceived value, but cannot copy it verbatim to sell for a profit.

though as for the website thing... if i'm not making money off it to begin with then i don't care if someone takes it verbatim.

but yeah that was my point, i disagree with how it is utilized and implemented currently.

farfromhome said:
One can agree with the general principle of copyright without agreeing with the horrid way it's implemented in this country (and others by treaty). If copyright were 20 years like patents (for music and software, maybe longer for books that are less burst-popularity focused and get outdated slower, no longer than 50 years period though), and gave the copyright owner no rights to control how it's used once it's been licensed other than to forbid copying (other than much broader fair use statutes than we have now), I think that would be fair. Then it would be truly about fair compensation, not raw control.

Car dealerships have no business telling you what you can and can't do with your car once it's been sold (beyond rules of the road that almost universally have to do with safety, not the profit of car-makers), and neither do creators of works of copyright once it's been licensed. That would still let text/audio/video producers be properly compensated, but not be turned into the eternal-monopoly/legal-bludgeon it is today. If copyright term were significantly reduced and fair use broadened, there would be much less cause to "pirate", and much less sympathy for those that still would under such a regime.
Click to expand...
 
gaspah said:
E: marry into a rich family and steal theirs...
Click to expand...

F: Make a clone of that exact computer bestbuy has at no cost to you and at no cost to the company or factory, literally a clone double.
 
I go to MIT. I am visiting home right now (which is why my IP address doesn't start with an 18 right now) for Mardi Gras. Cambridge (or Boston) is covered in the MIT network, it is a huge open access (practically) network. Since Boston/MIT is an East Coast center of technology (See Amazon, Google, 2k Games, etc...) the RIAA sends MIT letters regularly. Any IP that starts with 18 is MIT. They monitor the whole campus. If anything too tragic happened to them, the hammer would come down here first.
 
Icheb said:
I won't have a discussion with someone who insults me. Good day.
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't mean to insult you (and wasn't even specifically speaking about you in specific, just the generic "you" addressed to the reader), I was just trying to make a point. I've seen much, much worse on HardForum, and while that doesn't justify it, I thought it was pretty much the norm here to be a bit hard-edged in manner of speaking. You yourself were a bit hard-edged with your own wording earlier:

Icheb said:
If you don't like their terms, don't buy it. And don't pirate it either. I live by that rule and for some reason I'm still alive. Weird.
Click to expand...

If I were the type to look to be offended, I'd think that somehow implies I either buy it anyway and moan about it or pirate. I'm not that type, so I merely countered with points of my own to clarify my position (which you seem to have misunderstood) instead of taking personal umbridge to it. One who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.
 
Ockie said:
F: Make a clone of that exact computer bestbuy has at no cost to you and at no cost to the company or factory, literally a clone double.
Click to expand...

A voice of reason in this forum. ;) Analogies to physical property pretty much never make sense once you look at them closely enough. The term "intellectual property" is somewhat in bad taste, as it may be intellectual, but it sure ain't property in any sense of the word other than it can be "owned".

At least until they create replicators like in Star Trek, and then no doubt many businesses will want them banned (except for their own use, naturally) as it would destroy their business model. And we'll have people (nobody in particular, just saying in general :p ) defending the businesses saying that even though it can feed the hungry and give everybody everything they ever want materially, it should be held back so the poor people can keep their jobs to give them money for food instead, and after all, having a job gives one backbone and is better than having stuff handed to you for free. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top