backtop

Print 58 comment(s) - last by bowlerhatman.. on Mar 22 at 4:17 AM
The RIAA has tried to combat music piracy by filing lawsuits against alleged file sharers

It has been ruled that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) cannot randomly hunt through a user's computer in search of files.  Tanya Anderson, a single mother with a 9 year old daughter, has been accused of illegally uploading music files, and has been targeted by the RIAA for copyright infringement.

To prove that she has never downloaded a file, she invited the RIAA to examine her hard drive for these suspected files.  The music industry trade group wanted a court order to search her hard drive -- the RIAA wants to search her entire hard drive, which may lead to an invasion of privacy.  Not surprisingly, she refused, and judge Donald Ashmanskas agreed with Anderson and her lawyers.  The RIAA has been ordered to pay a forensic expert to look for files on her hard drive.  

"I'm glad the judge has finally given me the opportunity to show I didn't do what I'm being accused of, and that the RIAA won't be able to just search through my entire computer and invade my privacy by looking at stuff they don't need to look at, like tax info, family photos, financial stuff, etc," Andersen says.

Anderson is currently suing the RIAA in a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) case.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Something is fishy about this article
By SunAngel on 3/21/2006 3:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
Does this article make sense to anyone? She INVITED them to search her drive; however, THEY WANTED(RIAA) a court order to do it. Then she tells them no, you can't search my hard drive. Now the judge says they can only search for specific files.

If I was RIAA and someone gave me permission to search their computer, why would I file a complaint prior to the search. The whole point of the complaint is to get a warrant to allow LAW ENFORCEMENT to search her computer.

Either this article was written in hast or the author was half-asleep and had misunderstood his sources.

However, the substance of the article is understood. In this day and age, you might as well prepare yourself for prison (or a financial rape). Either way, it doesn't matter to me. With all the restrictions placed on parents, if their child does the least little thing wrong the parents are accountable and subject to prosecution. And money ..., well you came in this world without I guess you can leave with out it too.




By Spinne on 3/21/2006 3:21:13 AM , Rating: 4
No, it's just a very complicated case.


By ted61 on 3/21/2006 3:25:07 AM , Rating: 5
The RIAA wanted carte blanche access to the hard drive - they pretty much want to search the entire hard drive for whatever they want. She doesn't want the RIAA invading her privacy.


RE: Something is fishy about this article
By Lifted on 3/21/2006 3:26:16 AM , Rating: 5
Perhaps she invited the RIAA to search the computer in her presence, or even using a third party, and they basically said "no thanks, we want the hard drive all to ourselves to search however we feel necessary," at which point they filed for a court order to do so. They basically wanted the court to give them the right to plant "evidence" on her hard drive.

Oh, and your reading comprehension could use some work.


RE: Something is fishy about this article
By SunAngel on 3/21/2006 3:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
Nice update (fix) to the original article. It make more sense than it did before. However, coherency is still a little shaky.


By Sharky974 on 3/21/2006 7:22:28 AM , Rating: 1
No it doesn't make sense. It's just BULLSHIT. Propoganda.


P2P source? YEAH THOSE GUYS ARE TRUSTWORTHY.

Dailytech needs to stop printing this garbage.


By wrdegler on 3/21/2006 9:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
I think she is making a very valid point.

When a search is conducted there are very specific rules. A good analogy in this case would be the police searching your house for a stolen 52" plasma TV. The search could include looking in closets, under beds, etc but would not cover looking in a jewelry box, or opening drawers. This is because the item could not possibly be in them. If the police found someting illegal in the closet or under the bed it could be used as evidence in court. But if the illegal items were found in a medicine cabinet in a small box they would not be admissible in court because the police violated the terms of the search.

She is saying you may search for the files you claim I have, but not search any other contents because that is not the issue here.

I hope this goes high up in the courts and a clear ruling is made about searches of computer hard drives. We need clear boundaries in computer searches just like those established for searching a person, car, and building. Each of these has its own set of rules. Computer hard drives, network storage, etc need a set of search rules considering each areas unique issues.


RE: Something is fishy about this article
By spwatkins on 3/21/2006 10:22:59 AM , Rating: 2
I think my reading comprehension is pretty good and I find this article confusing. She invited them to "examine" her hard drive -- they wanted to "search her entire hard drive". The distinction is unclear, unless by "examine" she meant that she would hold the hard drive in her hand and they could count the pins on the IDE connector.


By isaacmacdonald on 3/21/2006 11:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed -- the article is unclear. "Reading comprehension" in this case seems to mean sifting through ambiguous, and sometimes contradictory statements, and then crafting your own subjective meaning.

A little less haste would make Daily Tech a lot more reputable.


CRIA knows the truth
By Sunbird on 3/21/2006 3:21:12 AM , Rating: 3
The Canadian version of RIAA has conducted a study and found some interesting things:

http://michaelgeist.ca/component/o ption,com_conten...




RE: CRIA knows the truth
By Sharky974 on 3/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: CRIA knows the truth
By Sharky974 on 3/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: CRIA knows the truth
By Sunbird on 3/21/2006 6:04:22 AM , Rating: 3
No, you go away, you are the belligerent one that cant accept others views, that swears and makes everything unpleasant. I hope you get banned for your immense immaturity.


RE: CRIA knows the truth
By redbone75 on 3/21/2006 6:18:42 AM , Rating: 3
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but you really need to be banned. Your language is rather vulgar and it seems the only thing you're doing is flaming other commenters. You are the one who should "go away."

With that said, as much as we all love to hate the RIAA and the MPAA, and as heinous as their actions seem to us, the principle behind their actions is worth fighting for. They are supposed to protect their interests as an organization, and that means going after any person or group that infringes on their properties. They need better lawyers, it seems, because such a request, or demand it seems, is absolutely ludicrousl. The judge should have thrown out their case against this woman on the grounds of sheer stupidity.


RE: CRIA knows the truth
By Sunbird on 3/21/2006 6:07:28 AM , Rating: 1
Did I say "very interesting"? In your frothen mouth haste you dont even have the skills to read coherently and comprehend what you read, and you insult other countries too boot.


RE: CRIA knows the truth
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 8:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
> "The Canadian version of RIAA has conducted a study and found some interesting things:"

Wow, a lot of logical fallacies in that Michael Geist blog.


RE: CRIA knows the truth
By Sunbird on 3/21/2006 11:17:51 AM , Rating: 2
I dont care what the author says/concludes/alleges or whatever.

I care about the results that the CRIA study found, the link to the pdf download site is in the article.


RE: CRIA knows the truth
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 12:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "I care about the results that the CRIA study found..."

Perhaps you can shed some light on what you felt was so interesting about these results?


RE: CRIA knows the truth
By Sunbird on 3/21/2006 12:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
That every Joe doesn't have gigs of unbought music on their machines, that people still buy CD's, just less and less cause the percieved value and the percieved quality of the music available has gone down. That only a small number of people download legal internet bought music (and I wonder what the cause would be, liek quality or drm or such).


RE: CRIA knows the truth
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 1:14:55 PM , Rating: 1
> "That every Joe doesn't have gigs of unbought music on their machines"

Every Joe? No. But many people do have large quantities of "unbought music"...each and every one stolen from its rightful owner.

What do you find "interesting" about that?

> "that people still buy CD's just less and less cause the percieved value and the percieved quality of the music available has gone"

Ah, the QUALITY has gone down. That's why tens of millions of people so anxiously download those songs. That's why P2P programs are always the most popular programs on any download site. That's why thousands of websites exists, all advertising countless copyrighted torrents. That's why millions of MP3 players are sold yearly, and teenagers around the country constantly burn CDs and swap songs with their friends.

It's all because the QUALITY is so bad...no one wants the stuff. That's why we're so frantic to get it.

Of course. If we don't buy that, then we have to believe someone might actually lie on a survey. And that is, of course, impossible. :0





RE: CRIA knows the truth
By Sunbird on 3/21/2006 1:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
>"Every Joe? No. But many people do have large quantities of "unbought music"...each and every one stolen from its rightful owner.

What do you find "interesting" about that?"

I never said I found that interesting, name calling (twerp) and now putting words in my mouth (your implying that I find stuff like people with tons of songs on their harddrives interesting), no wonder your a RIAA supporter ("like seeks like" like we say in Afrikaans, I am not prepared to engage with you and your dirty tactics any further.


RE: CRIA knows the truth
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 1:33:22 PM , Rating: 3
> "I never said I found that interesting"

You posted, "The...RIAA has conducted a study and found some interesting things". I asked you to name some, and you gave that as an example. Now, if you speak the same language as the rest of us, you called that an "interesting thing".

Did you just forget what you posted, or is this some strategy to embarrass yourself and win sympathy?




Yeah
By Kilim on 3/21/2006 3:16:15 AM , Rating: 2
I like this. I hate how corporations can pretty much do anything they want to people and no one is accountable. Who exactly is the person at the RIAA who will be convicted for violating this girl's rights? Who is the face behind all of these lawsuits?

Who exactly would be accountable?




RE: Yeah
By Sharky974 on 3/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah
By Sunbird on 3/21/2006 11:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
Do us ordinary people have the money to bribe lawmakers into giving us preferential laws?

There is a telecomunications company (a monopoly) here in South Africa, and they regard themselves above the law, they dont pay fines imposed by the Competition Commission, they dont have a valid shareholders register, they sponsor stuff like the Consumers Affairs Line and such so now use in complaining to them, they techinically bribe the government (which is a major shareholder) with dividends from their $1 billion net profit which they get from us having to use their lines for voice and internet. We have to pay $100 per month for a 384kbps line with 3GB a month cap on internet usage.

If RIAA gets wrongfully accused and sued, does it RUIN THEIR lifes like it does the ones they accuse? NO!

Well, at least you are much better than fishbrain974 (a retard that claims moral superiority by swearing, shouting and insulting :/ )


RE: Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah
By Sunbird on 3/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 12:36:29 PM , Rating: 3
> "Of course I don't [have any evidence]. I'm in another country..."

If you have no evidence, why insinuate it exists? Do you feel it builds your credibility to make wild claims with nothing to back them up?

> " And of course they would keep it well hidden with no paper trail..."

I see...the fact that no evidence has been found proves it must exist? Were you wearing a tinfoil hat when you posted that?

> "a super rich faceless corporation with teams of lawyers can do much more"

But a "super rich" person can also hire teams of lawyers themselves. And even middle-class individuals (here in the US at least) have hired attorneys, taken on "teams of corporate lawyers" and won. Millions and sometimes even billions of dollars.

> "I was just showing you corporations can do more than the average person..."

A fact you've still failed to demonstrate.

> "and since they aren't real people, they can't have a conscience or morality."

Incorrect. Corporations are made up of real people, and every action taken by a corporation is the result of a decision by one or more people. All whom have faces.

If a corporation breaks the law, some or all its officers are sent to jail. Real people. If it loses a lawsuit, its shareholders lose money. Real people.

Corporations are "faceless" only to wannabbe neo-socialist twerps with no real understanding of the world.





RE: Yeah
By Sunbird on 3/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 1:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
So you refuse to support even one of your claims? And now you're changing the subject as to whether the RIAA has "ever done anything wrong"?

Are you adult enough to admit that everyone alive today (including YOU) has "ever done anything wrong"? No one is perfect. The RIAA suing those who it has evidence has infringed on their copyrights is NOT wrong. It is the very essence of rightness. They didn't come after those people with a lynch mob or a silent assassin. They filed a suit, followed legal process, and request their day in court. A right we each and all possess. Even "rich" people.


> "I'm adult enough to know copyright infringement is slightly wrong "

It's more than slightly wrong. Biting your nails is "slightly wrong". Forgetting to call your mother on Mothers Day is "slightly wrong".

Copyright infringement is a crime that can rise to felony status, punishable by years in prison and large fines. Furthermore, it is NOT a victimless crime. It costs authors and copyright owners large sums of money. Real people, who are victimed by the acts of thieves.

It's not "slightly" wrong.


RE: Yeah
By Sunbird on 3/21/2006 1:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
I cant, because I am not as proficient and experienced and resourced as you. I have though proved how it is here in South Africa which is my reality/world.

Yes, it can be only "slightly wrong", as in it can be against the law to make a backup of your fragile DVD disk if these organizations had their way, but I say it would be only slightly wrong to break these rules they would have. They would have you buy 2 more disks at full price as backups. They are profit driven after all.

At least I dont call people names (I call fishbrain974 names but he deserves it) and try to be morally superior about everyting...



RE: Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 1:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "I have though proved how it is here in South Africa which is my reality/world."

But you don't even understand your own reality. Let's look at your example of Telkom. Its not a normal corporation. Its semi-privatized and owned partially by the State (your own government). It also is given monopoly powers by the force of law. Even trying to compete with Telkom brings the South African police to your door.

In short, Telkom is very nearly a branch of government itself. Its a long, long, LONG way from being a private business.




RE: Yeah
By spittledip on 3/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 2:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "Obviously a corporation has much more power than an individual."

The word "obviously" is usually code for "I have no proof but I hope you won't notice".

Corporations have no more power than an individual. In fact, legally they have far less. An individual can do many things a corporation cannot; they are very limited in what actions they can and cannot take.

Having a large amount of money leads to a certain degree of power. But a rich PERSON has more power than a corporation with the same amount of money. Despite what you saw in the latest Hollywood movie.

Money also doesn't buy unlimited power-- far from it. There are countless examples of middle-class citizens fighting billion-dollar corporations in court. And winning. Sometimes winning enough to become billionaires themselves. How do you explain that, if these evil, faceless corporate monsters have so much power?

> "You have a nerve to accuse others of using red herrings when you also use them yourself"

Point to some instances if you want to make a point. Wild claims without proof don't fly....except to some of the anti-capitalists here, it seems.

> "Try being a human being for a second and not having to be right all the time."

Sorry, but I prefer to be right than to be wrong. Why not try it yourself?


Boycott RIAA
By TomZ on 3/21/2006 12:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with RIAA is that we, as consumers, are financing them. Let me say that again, YOU AND I are responsible for providing that industry with money for them to come after us.

We all need to realize, the only way to stop them is to refrain from purchasing from RIAA-affiliated record labels.

http://www.boycottriaa.com

I'm not affiliated with RIAA, or any boycott RIAA organizations. I just think it's the right thing to do. RIAA is evil.




RE: Boycott RIAA
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 12:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "I just think it's the right thing to do. RIAA is evil..."

Anyone who has ever seen true evil would never make such a statement.

Tom, you're normally one of the more level-headed posters here. Do you really think such excessive hyperbole is warranted?


RE: Boycott RIAA
By Sunbird on 3/21/2006 12:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
If RIAA actions make a normally level-headed person resort to hyperbole and encouraging boycotting, doesn't that make you think about said actions?

I'm pretty sure he can explain his feelings better himself though.


RE: Boycott RIAA
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 1:16:32 PM , Rating: 1
Since he already admitted he didn't the term in its classical sense, you might want to pull your foot out of your mouth.

Or not...up to you.


RE: Boycott RIAA
By TomZ on 3/21/2006 12:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Of course I don't mean evil in the historical sense. But RIAA and that industry is very bad in terms of how they treat people, and how they manipulate the laws and judicial system in order to go after ordinary citizens. What defense do most citizens have when RIAA brings federal suits against them? They've already lost at the start, since they'll have to hire an attorney (thousands of dollars). Then RIAA will threaten to continue to pursue action against them until they "settle" for thousands of dollars out of court, without even getting a fair trial. Is that justice?

I'm not a proponent of copyright violation, but I think that the tactics that RIAA uses to protect its industry's interests are way too heavy handed. Instead of hiring more attorneys, RIAA should instead get in touch with what consumers want from that industry these days, especially in terms of technology, DRM, etc., because they are obviously pretty clueless.


RE: Boycott RIAA
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 1:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "What defense do most citizens have when RIAA brings federal suits against them? They've already lost at the start, since they'll have to hire an attorney (thousands of dollars). "

Very, very untrue. You can easily defend yourself without an attorney, or hire an one and countersue for damages as well as your legal fees. And, if you unfairly targeted, you'll win too. The Hollywood myth of oily-tongued attorneys being able to win any case is just that-- myth.

Judges are very lenient with private citizens without attorney representation...and they're very good at discounting the flapdoodle presented by a corporate attorney.

The people settling these suits are the people who KNOW THEY'RE GUILTY. What defense do they have? None whatsoever. They downloaded the music, and the RIAA has evidence to prove it. Of COURSE they're going to settle, rather than face the statutory penalties...which are very harsh.


RE: Boycott RIAA
By TomZ on 3/21/2006 6:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I guess technically you never need an attorney. But federal court is serious business, much more than local and state courts. Just ask any attorney.

Being guilty or not isn't really the point. Probably most everyone has violated copyright law in terms of how RIAA interprets the laws. So they make examples out of certain individuals, and issue press releases to make sure they get lots of attention to intimidate the rest of us.

It's kind of like laws regarding driving. Everyone has breaks a rule of the road now and then, like maybe going too fast now and then. Now suppose there was random prosecution like now, but with lots of media attention, plus an $8000 fine, and appearances in federal court. Does that seem fair?

Keep in mind that a lot of these RIAA cases are against ordinary citizens - we're not talking about people who run large servers with illegal content. We're talking about your sister's friend, or your uncle, or whomever that loaded up Bearshare and shared out some of their MP3s.

Regardless of whether we agree on this, or agree to disagree, I still think a boycott of RIAA labels is appropriate, and when I purchase new CDs, I check to make sure there is no affiliation as best as I can tell.


RE: Boycott RIAA
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 10:05:07 PM , Rating: 1
> "Being guilty or not isn't really the point"

You're losing credibility fast with statements like this. Whether or not you're guilty is the ONLY point. If you think otherwise, you're just trying to justify the crime.

> "Probably most everyone has violated copyright law in terms of how RIAA interprets the laws"

False. I personally know dozens of people who have never once violated fair use copyright law. Most people are not criminals...and most people do NOT copy songs and give/sell/trade them to others. Most teenagers, perhaps. But not the populace as a whole.

> " So they make examples out of certain individuals..."

Those "certain individuals" aren't those who just accidently stepped over a line now and then. They're people who download large amounts of files on a regular or extended basis.

As for making an example out of them, I don't see your problem...are you suggesting the RIAA should just sue each and every one of the millions of downloaders in the nation? Would you prefer that?

> "It's kind of like laws regarding driving. Everyone has breaks a rule of the road now and then,"

And when you do, you may not get a ticket. But if you get one, you walk into court and try the "unfair prosecution" angle and see how far it gets you.

According to crime statistics, most rapists remain unpunished also. Does that mean rape is acceptable, because we only catch and prosecute a few of the culprits?

> "Keep in mind that a lot of these RIAA cases are against ordinary citizens "

Ah, the "pity" fallacy makes an appearance. Everyone being prosecuted broke the law. And they did so multiple times, over an extended period of time. And they did so in FULL KNOWLEDGE they were committing a crime. They just didn't care.

Remember the old expression, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime"? I think it applies here.

> "Regardless of whether we agree on this, or agree to disagree, I still think a boycott of RIAA labels is appropriate"

Personally, I've been boycotting the RIAA for years. I can't remember the last time a major label put out something decent.

Still, that is no excuse for stealing. If you don't like the RIAA, don't buy their product. Don't steal it, then cry when you get caught.







Only terrorists have things to hide
By shuttleboi on 3/21/2006 8:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
Why are all of you so upset? In this post-9/11 world, we have to give up some of our rights in order to protect our children. If you don't agree, then that means you have something to hide.




By TomZ on 3/21/2006 9:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
How does giving up any of our rights to the RIAA, which is a recording industry consortium, not a government agency, have anything to do with protecting our children?

If we support the RIAA, the only thing we're protecting for our children is the privlege of paying more for music than we should, and for having them sue us if they catch us file swapping!


By TomZ on 3/21/2006 9:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
...And don't even get me started on that totally BS Bush Adminstration assertion that we Americans need to sacrifice our civil liberties so that the government can better protect us from terrorists and other threats!


About time.
By Le Québécois on 3/21/2006 3:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's about time someone is putting a speed bump in front of the RIAA showing them they may not do everything they want has they want. They too are not above the law.




RE: About time.
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 9:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
Portraying this as some sort of loss for the RIAA is silly, and reveals a basic misundertanding of legal proceeding. The original P2P article claims the RIAA is "licking their wounds", which while suitably dramatic, is laughably incorrect.

In truth, this is just standard procedure in a civil suit, and I'm sure in no way surprising whatsoever to the RIAA's attorneys. You always seek as much access as you can to what the other side has and you never expect a judge to grant you everything you ask for.


Go RIAA
By Sharky974 on 3/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Go RIAA
By Sunbird on 3/21/2006 6:08:46 AM , Rating: 2
Go everyone and everything anti-RIAA, I say.


RE: Go RIAA
By PLaYaHaTeD on 3/21/2006 10:22:41 AM , Rating: 2
I second that


Interesting
By GGA1759 on 3/21/2006 5:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe this will start to create precedence for other violations of our privacy via computer. (ie. tracking cookies and tracking software)




RE: Interesting
By Sharky974 on 3/21/2006 8:13:44 AM , Rating: 1
No. Probably not.


The incredible part
By mindless1 on 3/21/2006 4:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
The incredible part is that RIAA actually felt it was a reasonable enough request to even bother making it in the first place. Tends to show just how ridiculous their mindset is. Why on earth would "they" be the ones entrusted to dig up evidence rather than a 3rd party looking only for these specific, alleged acts?

I agree with another poster, we need to start seeing some personal accountability, it is only just when they expect a level of accountability from those (they claim) are doing this illegal P2P sharing.




RE: The incredible part
By Sharky974 on 3/21/06, Rating: 0
This shouldnt be news to them
By Griswold on 3/21/2006 6:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
...cannot randomly hunt through a user's computer in search of files.

Say what...




Re About time
By bowlerhatman on 3/22/2006 4:17:22 AM , Rating: 2
Good for her we must make a stand. I have just signed a petition to this effect at www.flowerburger.com




1st POST!!! Once Again
By SunAngel on 3/21/06, Rating: 0
"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki