How Not To Defend Yourself Against An RIAA Lawsuit
from the just-saying dept
There are plenty of reasonable ways to defend yourself against an RIAA lawsuit over file sharing. For example, you can show how your IP address is shared by many others and it's impossible for the RIAA to know who was actually responsible. However, one thing you should absolutely not do is erase your hard drive -- especially when there's a court order demanding you produce the hard drive as evidence. Yes, that's what one guy did, and the judge (not surprisingly) has sided with the RIAA and ruled in their favor.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saving hard drive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The article states there was a court order demanding the defendant produce the evidence-in-question.
Don't forget, in America you are still innocent until PROVEN guilty and the RIAA can't bring criminal charges (which is when a search warrent is a possibility), only civil. They can't claim that someone did something and then have the police run around busting down doors. What would stop them from simply declaring every Americian is guilty if that's all they had to do?
I'm pretty sure you're way off in your understanding of our laws and your rights as an American to the privacy of your home.
Now, if they were able to PROVE in court that you were a criminal then not only would you lose the civil case they brought against you but then the government could bring criminal charges - which would likely lead to a warrent to confiscate evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
of course later they discover the equipment won't quiet startup correctly, moaning about missing network drives etc.
cuz they *didn't* take the file server I share with a neighbour located in my loft space, but owned by my neighbour. not that theres anything they would need to see on it (its basically a CVS machine along with a few shared directories, oh and its good with some games as well).
but they didn't know that. and since its all locked down wifi, there was no wires to give it away.
hence this sort of take everything attitude is somewhat flawed these days, of course if I just remote hosted this sort of stuff it gets even harder.
but wiping a machine does look a tad guilty, though my main machine gets wiped every few months and restored. difference is i can probably prove it. say a number of internet posts claiming i do this, and the fun and games i have reactivating windows etc....
sod em, no point making life easy for these low lifes..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
they don't actually boot your machine, because they don't know what safeguards you may have in place to destroy the data if, say, you didn't hit alt-shift-g while booting. also, they want to detect the data written under the data currently written. generally they unplug your hdd and connect it to a mirroring device and sift through the data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
also, they want to detect the data written under the data currently written.
Nope sorry,
You can't do that without removing the platters from the drive.
Destruction of property is not something you can get away with in a CIVIL case.
Let's all try to remember that these are CIVIL CASES folks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i dont get it whats so bad about filesharing? its like a full "demo"...
i used filesharing for music and games.. and then about week or two i go buy the real thing.. soo.. whats the big deal? why the incoints get punished? for things thay dint do.. sure this guy seems to have made wrong moves.. but the riaa has sued soo meny people i lost count. and most of em it wasnt there fualt. thay dint do it.. most cases its a friend whom was on pc or some thing.. but.. yea.. theres nothing wrong with filesharing for the copyright law states that you are allowed to give a copy of digital music software w/e to a friend. but only "3 copys" so... if a person buys some thing uses filesharing to transfer a file to a friend nothing wrong yet the riaa well sue the hell out of you if thay find out.. soo.. the riaa is just some people who think thay are better than us and have nothing els to do. but wast are time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...is that they want WAY TO MOTHER FUCKING MUCH MONEY for the SHIT they sell.
The PROBLEM, Mr. IGNORANT...
...is that they're MOTHER FUCKING GREEDY-ASS PIECES OF SHIT.
Let's take this 'problem' identification to the REAL source once in a while, why don't we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All PCs have the same IP (router) I could give them all my porn... Or my legal game demoes... They never specified a hard drive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyrights
Here is the problem in my eyes. Filesharing is designed to defeat copyright ownership. Why else would it exist? I am sure if you worked hard on something and expected to profit from that work you would not want people stealing it. That is what you are doing by downloading these files without permission from the copyright owner. You are hurting someone. That someone being the owner of that material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyrights
That's a very simplified explanation. Filesharing exists because it's a very efficient distribution method. It doesn't way down a single person's bandwidth and allows for much more efficient distribution of data.
I am sure if you worked hard on something and expected to profit from that work you would not want people stealing it.
Again, this is false. There are plenty of musicians who DO like people file sharing their music, because it gets them much more attention, and allows them to profit in other ways. Plenty of research has shown that file sharing does not actually hurt most artists, and can often improve their overall economic position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyrights
The truth of the matter can be quite the opposite. For example, I have never bought an album in my life, and never plan on it. If I want to listen to music, before I used filesharing, I would either turn on the radio or borrow friend's CD's. Filesharing opened up a whole new world! By having me download artist's songs, the artists are getting more publicity (I have quite a few my friends to actually go out and purchase albums when they would normally not have). If you would never spend money to buy a CD, but still want to listen to it, why wouldn't you download it (except, of course, for the RIAA)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then the RIAA says...
It ain't realistic, but since when is the RIAA concerned with reality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA inconsequential
Most of the creators of these songs make most of their money off of concerts. If the download is free or even 10 cents a song on account of the record companies not taking their share, and the artist gets more listeners and more ticket sales, who's losing? The RIAA are a buncha cheats and whiners, they used to cheat their artists out of millions of dollars in the past. They can't anymore. Karma in large dose anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
Mike nails why sharing is good in his last lines there..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds good to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds good to me
1) Why are you worried about Linux? People who claim an association to the 'Linux camp' have taken the copyrights off of BSD code and slapped on their own copyrights. ATA code, G4U, and in the 2.0.36 kernel an inDUvidual admits to taking the code from FreeBSD, and then removed the copyright.
2) When 'the linux camp' had virgin alantic dead-to-rights about mis-using the GNU/Linux system in the Virgin Webplayer, the gutless wonders of GNU/Linux could not be bothered to even write a nasty letter, let alone sue.
A hypocritical lot the GNU/Linux camp is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: encryption
creates an invisible volume inside a decoy file ;)~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
discovery process - the reality
If you disobey the court order to preserve evidence you will face summary judgement (as in this case) as well as possible charges for obstruction and also allow the opposing counsel to sway the judge.
Even if you claim a "scheduled wipe" or your system automatically deletes old emails/logs on a scheduled basis - once that preserve evidence order goes out you're hosed.
To the person who said "which hard drive" - yes, it means all of them. During the discovery process the opposing side is allowed to "interview" and ask questions like "How many computers do you have? Do you ever bring your work laptop to this site and use it here?" and then define what is to be collected.
How to tell whether they were downloaded or legit? Not exactly easy but it's not too tough - take a look at the metadata on the files and logs. You'd be amazed at how much metadata there is for each file and how much logging your average user has for downloads and the such. Or..Get the ISP to turn over their logs and compare file create dates. Got the .torrent still on your hard disk? How about checking hashes on the shared file and the one your drive?
The simplest method - ask to see the person's CD collection and match em.
There are plenty of ways to do this... Unless you really wipe the metadata you're pretty much holding a stinky pile of evidence. (As an example - Safari sticks the URL where you downloaded a file from as well as the location you clicked on the download link into the file's metadata.)
It's looking like these RIAA lawsuits are getting to a serious point. Discovery is very expensive and these guys either got very lucky or will start going to trial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: discovery process - the reality
at which point i'd say the other side have to do more work arguing it was done to hide evidence.
and if a warrent was served on me saying to turn over all my hard drives i would. but unless asked about equipment belonging to anyone else i'd see no need to point that out.
i'd see the data question as a 'pairing' thing, you have the ISP logs, and the machines ahrd drive, if they agree yes that machine downloaded it. theres still the little matter of proving who was sat in front of it at the time, but thats a smaller issue in most cases since the number of people who have access is generally small.
the 'ask to see a cd collection and match then up' well that could work, but you need a reason to ask, just because someones IP points to possible downloading... is a court actually going to order an inventory of my cd collection because of that? and when it all adds up (it will) who do i present the bill for my time to?
if the RIAA/BPI etc all will actually pay for the cost of gathering the evidence they need to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' thats one thing, if they just plan to fire these things out to everyone and expect people to caough up to make them go away thats another.
though in my case an expert such as yourself would prove my innocence.. could I bill the other side for your time along with my other legal costs? cus thats where the turning point is. once these crooks have to pay the other sides costs when they loose. well thats when the number ofc ases brought will go down. but maybe, just maybe the number of successful ones will go up a bit as resources are directed a bit more to actually gathering evidence and less towards issuing threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: discovery process - the reality
After wiping some files, You can't tell whether the files were copyrighted or not.
And I do have the right to wipe me material (maybe pictures of my wife), do I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: discovery process - the reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: discovery process - the reality
*****
The court began its analysis with the text of § 512(h). Noting that § 512(h) requires the fulfillment of § 512(c)(3)(A) as a condition precedent to issuing a subpoena, the court examined the provisions of § 512(c)(3)(A). Observing that § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) requires a subpoena requestor to identify material “to be removed or access to which is to be disabled,” a requirement that is impossible to meet if the ISP does not store infringing material or if the material is stored in the user’s computers, the appeals court determined that § 512(h) is inapplicable to an ISP who acts as a mere conduit of information exchange. As for the RIAA’s contention that the ISP could disable the infringing material by disconnecting the user to the internet, the court rejected it stating that Congress likely did not intend such a remedy in this situation because Congress had established the remedy of disconnecting access to the Internet in other sections of the Act. Similarly, the court dismissed RIAA’s argument that the notification requirement of § 512(c)(3)(A) is met if it includes “substantially” the required information. The court reasoned that since in the legislative history “substantially” only indicates that technical errors do not render the notification requirement ineffective, lack of information was not what Congress had in mind when it added the term “substantially.” The court also rejected RIAA’s final argument that the definition of an ISP in § 512(k)(1)(B) renders § 512(h) applicable to an ISP regardless of the ISP’s action concerning the infringing activity. Stating that the argument “borders upon the silly” the court maintained that applicability of § 512(h) depends upon the fulfillment of the § 512(c)(3)(A) requirements.
*****
Thus, they can't subpoena your ISP to add more substance to their claims. Unless you store your warez on their servers
They can however seize your equipement, but that's another issue that has nothing to do with the previously meantioned ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
InternetCases.com has some more info
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: the reality
very very little of which was DLed from this location...
between than and the large fire we had a year ago that destroyed a lot of my posessions, most of my bases are covered..
Thanks again man!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: the reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
even thought it is about diaRIAA, the law needs
i beleive that if a copyright holder in not actively producing, after, say 5 years, the music should become public domain. [just a start point]
there is music i like that has never been released on to CD, actually, some 8 track tapes. and i like music from artists now dead.record companies wont produce it, nor allow it to be released.
i know a widow of an artist who died in the late 80's. she would like to release some of his stuff, and there is a demand for it..yet the copyright holders, record companies, won't allow her to.
i have other friends who are musicians. they would love to put some of my work to music. i have it all copyrighted and refuse to allow it. i would have to give up my work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hard drive in question
Should someone wish to examine my computer, there will only be one drive in it at any given time, and the others are securely put away in a place well away from the computer itself (both for security and for obscurity). With this arrangement, even if I were to have multitudes of illegally obtained files on one of the drives, there is no trace of any of that drive if it's not the one in the computer, and no way to prove that it even exists at all.
Good luck to anyone who wants to find any evidence in a situation such as this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Love Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"No person shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Encrypt and feel safe
System Preferences
Security
Enable File Vault, choose a 15 chars password
Let them have fun in decrypting your data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He/she?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USB Flash Memory - as an option
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please go back to school and pay attention in English class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lesser of two evils
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real issues
The fact is, file sharing is stealing. Is it okay to go into a store and grab a candy bar that you've never tried, just to see if you like it? That's what, a 50 cent piece of candy, who does it hurt? And hey, if you like it, maybe you'll buy some in the future. But everyone agrees, taking that was theft. Why is intelectual property any different? Don't try to make yourself feel less guilty by saying you're helping artists.
Yet at the same time, is it really necessary for the RIAA to go around suing everyone for downloading MP3's? Wouldn't all that time and money be better spent finding ways to increase publicity and sales? For instance, when a song is released to radio, making said song legally available on the 'net? Or packaging albums as collectibles, so you pay for something that cannot physically be obtained via internet? Or making your product attractive to potential buyers instead of feeding us the same uninspired crap over and over again?
Who knows, maybe i'm wrong. But this whole debate just seems idiotic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real issues
The right analogy would be going into a store, grabbing a candy bar, copying the candy bar, and then trying the copied candy bar to see if you like it.
... and yeah, also allowing others to copy and try your copied candy bar.[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real issues
and on the above post about how mp3's are not really free...yeah you're paying your ISP for your internet, and your computer, and so forth. I could be wrong but don't think any of that money goes to the music industry. I pay a ton for gasoline and insurance and my car, so can i take a radio to go with it because i've already paid for everything else? *shrug*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real issues
Hmm. You seem to not understand the difference between an item with limited supply and limitless supply. Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Although they do lose some profit (out of their huge profit margins), they ridiculously quote figures as if nearly EVERY download would have been a sale. Trust me people who download would not be buying many cd or dvds a year. The reasons the download numbers are so high is because they are "free"
- I hesitate to call things 'free' though, because although not buying outright, the cost per year of a high performance computer, high speed internet connection, digital cable/hi-def cable TV service + box rental, and perhaps paying off a HD tv is alot of money per year to invest in the entertainment industry's products -- without the ability to copy the content you are paying so much for even to back up your own DVR (without the content being downgraded terribly) for example. They are trying to put big brother in your living room and take away your digital freedom on content you already bought.
- Further detailing the last comment: a good cable internet package averages $40 x 12 mo is $480 /yr alone, digital cable/satellite + dvr box maybe $75 x 12 mo. ~ $900. Other considerations are perhaps a HD dvd player of some sort and larger harddrives for your computer in order to archive the content you already bought, and perhaps a HDTV , ipod, etc.
- I hope people wake up and perhaps make some sort of boycott at some point until these fat-cats get back in their place and out of my living room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Included in the point was that you can pay for the same content multiple times, and not be able to use it to your liking. In the case of HD-TV packages you are paying a premium to the provider (commercials included), and perhaps renting a DVR box at extra cost. Your entertaiinment budget per year might also include buying some cds, mp3s, dvds and perhaps a season of a show, and renting some dvds. That money goes to the entertainment industry.
Your content is becoming digitally tagged. They don't want you to be able to pay for content once and be able to use it on your pc, ipod/ipodvideo, psp handheld, laptop, and back it up, etc. They want you to pay each time (ok in some cases you get 5 location-copies big deal). In fact I'm sure if they could get away with it every type of media in existence would priced per view/per listening - on demand with commericals included.
I'm not saying you shouldn't buy content, but I am trying to show the other ugly side of the coin. I'm saying they are trying to take away your freedoms with content you already paid, and often paid for in more ways than one, and are overcharging for the content in the first place. They are also in many cases greatly overexaggerating download numbers vs. lost revenue as if the majority of downloads would have been purchases.
Entertainment and communications companies are a few of the largest lobbies (political bribers) in the country. They write bills in their own greedy interest and drop them on congressmen's desks to be sponsored. They also have virtual monopolies and/or are in collusion with their competitors in certain major provider markets. In additon the communications segment is trying to put tariffs on the internet ontop of bandwidth costs .. the only country's corporations in the world to be sleazy enough to suggest such a thing as far as I know.
I don't like car, highway, or bank comparisons. Digital entertainment and communications is its own unique technology. I don't want to take a radio just because I bought a car -- but if I pay for satellite radio every month and have an integrated ipod or laptop in my car I want to be able to record and copy the satellite radio content for my personal use. I don't want to copy a corporation's checks but if I subscribe to a monthly book club (or for example digital/e-book club if there is such a thing)and for some reason want to scan a book I own into my computer or copy an ebook to be viewed personally on whatever device I decide to use, I think I should be able to. I feel the same about mp3s. I have numerous digital devices and format and upgrade computers as I please. I want to copy (and back up) mp3s that I bought as many times as I feel like it for my own use, to as many of my own devices as I want.
Another gripe I have is that I've already paid a premium for content why should I have to let the provider "steal" my time and attention forcing me to watch or listen to so much commercial content, or at the very least the aggravation of trying to get around watching such content? This lately includes commercials in movie theatres,about a half-hour of coming attractions in theatres (and on dvds), tons of commercials on private television networks -- and now commercials (including video footage of people in addition to the network 'icons' and text scrolling) on screen during the shows/movies.
Why spend so much money on protection/spying/tagging and litigation? I think they are going about it the wrong way. Why not give people more for their money, making downloading less attractive, and stop overcharging for content. Greed is why, and far greedier and more corrupt than the little internet downloader.
If things do not change - I hope more people get fed up with the entertainment industry's "take it or leave it", "big brother" and progressively invasive approaches. They are taking advantage of people who buy their content. Maybe they will continue to overstep their bounds until the public gives them the collective 'finger' and shows them how much revenue they could really be losing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called "Fair Use"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spoiliation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In response to anyone arguing against filesharing, I have this to say: It is illegal for me to have copyrighted material without the owner of the copyrights permission? How do I go about that? Do I write a letter to them and arrange a meeting of when we can discuss me using this material and what lenghs I may or may not enjoy it? How long I must keep it for. How much I must pay? No I don't get any of that. I go to the shop, pick up the CD, take it to the counter and pay the retailer for it. The retailer pays the wholesaler who generally buys direct from the record company. The record company has already paid the band or musician for their work. So my CD money doesn't even technically make it to the artist.
So I've downloaded the new Isis album. It is pretty good. I'm struck by dilemma. Do I venture off into town and spend a good day looking for a shop that sells one of my favourite musicians? No, because I'd be there all fucking day and I'd come home with no CD. Why is that? Because Isis aren't on a huge label, therefore don't get a place on the shelves.
Artists don't own copyrights to most of their music. The Beatles certainly don't. So how bad should I feel at downloading their stuff? Oh boo hoo the artist isn't going to get money. Newsflash, half the Beatles are dead but the remaining few are loaded and to top it off, the people who took the copyrights to the songs are even richer! Capitalism at it's best!
Copyrights piss me off. As someone said a bit further up the page "I am sure if you worked hard on something and expected to profit from that work you would not want people stealing it. " If you work so hard on something you are a greedy greedy twat to expect to profit so much from it, or at all. Good people do things for love. A REAL musician makes music because they love it and can't escape record companies hassling them to record for them. A real creative mind witha passion for what they do does it for free. If you think that sounds stupid, you're a capitalist faggot. I refer to Matt Stone and Trey Parker, of whom couldn't give a toss who pays for and doesn't pay for South Park. They love it, we love it, they appreciate that and want us to love as much of it as we can.
Done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People are not "greedy" when they work hard to acheive something, and hope for a return on their work... The dictionary definition of greed according to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=greed&x=0&y=0
is "an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth"
The key point here is "excessive desire." Is it bad to want to be rich? Is that greedy? Nope. Greed comes when the desire itself is excessive. If you want to be rich to the point where it affects negatively your relationships with people, your priorities, moral standards, etc., I would say that is when you become greedy.
Not all rich people are greedy. That being said, there are many lower and middle class people who are. And there is nothing wrong with or greedy about working for a paycheck. It's called "self interest" which is a completely different thing than greed. Working for money to support yourself and your family is there in the same self interest boat as taking a shower every day, brushing your teeth regularly, or changing your baby's diapers.
All of that being said, I am dissapointed in the RIAA and the way they have handled file sharing, with their close-mindedness, lawsuits that reek of extortion, and obvious signs of greed. To make it in the marketplace you have to be flexible and adjust to the market. Otherwise you will lose your customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All of them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MORE How Not To Defend Yourself Against a RIAA Law
See http://RIAAScorecard.com
Marc @
The P2P Insider's Weblog http://p2p-weblog.com
DiaRIAA http://DiaRIAA.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
riaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
riaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
riaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Late to the party
A suit in the civil arena is way different than criminal prosecution. If you were accused of having kiddy porn on your hard drive, thats a felony crime, and the cops can get a search warrant, kick down your door, take all your computers and arrest you if you try and stop them. In a civil action like an RIAA suit, they demand you to turn over the hard drive (or the whole computer) and if you don't, they ask the judge to order you to do it. And I would imagine if while they were examining your hard drive for MP3 files they come across some kiddy porn... you'll have some explaining to do to the police.
I have read that there have been some challenges to the RIAA's blanket figure of $750 per song... but I haven't seen any end results.
Bottom line... collectively we have the power to kill these blood sucking leeches. If we all boycotted the music industry for even just a year... they would see where the power really lies. Don't by any CD's (unless from a pawn shop), don't go to any concerts... I think the RIAA would shut the hell up pretty quick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]