Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Privacy

Submission + - First RIAA case victim finally speaks out. (p2pnet.net)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: It’s, “no secret that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has responded to the growth of online file sharing with a wave of copyright infringement litigation,” wrote James Alonso, Marc Friedenberg, Michael Nguyen, Shawn Oakley and Sarah Calvert from The Columbia Science & Technology Law Review.

“Often, the individuals targeted by the RIAA fear the overwhelming costs of defending themselves in court, and many have agreed to pay large settlements.”

Often, but not always.

Now, inspired by the examples of people such as the five very reluctant heroines mentioned below, increasing numbers of victims are deciding not to let themselves be terrorised into settling.

The five, courageous in every sense of the word, are:
  • Patti Santangelo, a New York mother of five children, two of whom have now become RIAA targets
  • Rae-Jay Schwartz, another mother, bound to a wheelchair by multiple sclerosis, the terrible central nervous system disease
  • Marie Lindor, a 57-year-old home health aid whose knowledge of computers and computer systems is zero
  • Tanya Andersen, a disabled mother living off a disability pension
  • Jammie Thomas, a young mother of two from Minnesota


But it’s Thomas, the first of the American RIAA victims to actually appear in court, who’s caught the attention of the international mainstream media for more than just a day or two.

Horrified by the negative (for them) PR the case has been generating, using their connections, political power and influence, the labels are doing their best to distort facts and spin Thomas as a cold schemer whose depredations forced the RIAA to take her to court.

Cary Sherman, the organisation’s chief spin doctor, said he was “surprised it took this long for one of the industry lawsuits to go to trial” when in fact, the organisation has done everything it can to stop any of these cases actually reaching a judge and jury.

Thomas has also achieved two other firsts:

As far as I know, she’s the first to launch her own forum, and for the first time since she was forced into the limelight, she’s telling her own story, in her own words.



One of the subjects she touches on was that it wasn't her decision to replace the harddrive. This fact was a major decision in her persecution.

also never dreamt how large of a story my case would become. Before I went to court, no one except those close to me knew of this situation I was dealing with. Now, I can Google my name and read articles about me. A very odd and surreal feeling for me as I never wanted this much notoriety, ever. Unfortunately, a lot of the articles I’ve read are full of half-truths, conjectures, and right out lies. I can understand media outlets having a deadline to meet, but I cannot understand media outlets filling the holes in their stories with incorrect information.

‘Best Buy made the decision to replace the hard drive’

I would like to now talk about some of that incorrect information which has plagued news articles and comments. First, I will finally set straight the issue with my computer hard drive, when it was replaced, why it was replaced, who replaced it and what might have happened to the old drive. I have read many comments and articles that I had my hard drive replaced after I learned of my suit. This could not be further from the truth. What most people don’t know, if I did have my hard drive replaced after I was served the initial complaint to this suit, that would be considered spoliation of evidence, which is a criminally prosecutable offense. All the following dates, keep in mind so you can see the timeline yourself.
The Courts

Submission + - U.of Oregon Says No to RIAA; ID no good

Submitted by
NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "The University of Oregon has filed a motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena for information on student identities, in what is believed to be the first such motion made by the university itself, rather than by the students, and the first instance of a State Attorney General bringing a motion to quash an RIAA subpoena. The motion (pdf) explains that it is impossible to identify the alleged infringers from the information the RIAA has presented: "Five of the seventeen John Does accessed the content in question from double occupancy dorm rooms at the University. With regard to these Does, the University is able to identify only the room where the content was accessed and whether or not the computer used was a Macintosh or a PC.... The University cannot determine whether the content in question accessed by one occupant as opposed to another, or whether it was accessed instead by a visitor. Two of the seventeen John Does accessed the content in question from single occupancy dorm rooms....No login or personally identifiable information, i.e. authentication, was used by the Does to access the university's network because none is required. The University cannot determine whether the content was accessed by the room occupant or visitor. Nine of the seventeen John Does accessed the content in question from the University's wireless network or a similar system called the "HDSL Circuit." These systems do record a user name associated with the access. For these John Does, the University can determine the identity of the individual who bas been assigned the user name, however, it is unable to determine whether the content was accessed by the individual assigned that user name or by someone else using the computer associated with the user name. In the case of sixteen of the seventeen John Does, .... it is not possible for the University to identify the alleged infringers without conducting interviews and a forensic investigation of the computers likely involved." The AG's motion further argues (pdf) that "Plaintiffs' subpoena is unduly burdensome and overbroad. It seeks information that the University does not readily possess. In order to attempt to comply with the subpoena, the University would be forced to undertake an investigation to create discovery for Plaintiffs — an obligation not imposed by Rule 45. As the University is unable to identify the alleged infringers with any accuracy, it cannot comply with its federal obligation to notify students potentially affected by the subpoena." One commentator has likened the AG's argument to saying, in effect, that the RIAA's evidence is "rubbish"."
Education

Submission + - Students assigned to write Wikipedia articles (physorg.com)

Submitted by openfrog
openfrog writes: An inspired professor at University of Washington-Bothell, Martha Groom, made an interesting pedagogical experiment. Instead of vilifying Wikipedia as some academics are prone to do, she assigned the students enrolled in her environmental history course to contribute articles. The result has proven "transformative" to her students. They were no longer spending their time writing for one reader, says Groom, but were doing work of consequence in a "peer reviewed" environment, which enhanced the quality of their output. What do you fellow Slashdotters think of the idea that in our colleges and universities lies a potentially large and untapped resource for Wikipedia?

Slashdot Top Deals

Evolution is a million line computer program falling into place by accident.

Close