The RIAA has hired the Nation's top hired gun to fight music piracy.

Apparently, the recording industry doesn't realize yet that it's fighting a losing battle. Looks like we're in for another ridiculous fight this coming year.

ATF Director to Head Music Industry's Anti-Piracy Efforts
By the Associated Press for Fox News.

The director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (search) is leaving his post next month to lead the recording
industry's efforts to stop music piracy.

Bradley A. Buckles, who served ATF for 30 years and was named director in
1999, will come head of the Anti-Piracy Unit of the Recording Industry
Association of America (search), the trade group announced Tuesday.

"Brad's appointment should signal to everyone that we continue to take
piracy (search), here and throughout the world, very seriously," said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA's chairman and chief executive officer.

Here is the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105282,00.html

ATF Director to Head Music Industry's Anti-Piracy Efforts

Tuesday, December 09, 2003

WASHINGTON — The director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (search) is leaving his post next month to lead the recording
industry's efforts to stop music piracy.

Bradley A. Buckles, who served ATF for 30 years and was named director in
1999, will come head of the Anti-Piracy Unit of the Recording Industry
Association of America (search), the trade group announced Tuesday.

"Brad's appointment should signal to everyone that we continue to take
piracy (search), here and throughout the world, very seriously," said Mitch
Bainwol, RIAA's chairman and chief executive officer.

Over the past six months, RIAA has filed more than 380 copyright lawsuits
(search) against computer users its says are illegally distributing songs
over the Internet. The RIAA also says music copyrights are increasingly
threatened by easy-to-produce counterfeit compact disks.

Attorney General John Ashcroft praised Buckles for "the seamless transfer"
of ATF from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department, which was
part of the law creating the Homeland Security Department.

Buckles' retirement is effective Jan. 3. No replacement was immediately
named.

	Interview with LimeWire COO Greg Bildson By Lisa Rein for OpenP2P.com

Lisa Rein: So, you guys paid Brianna's RIAA fine?

Greg Bildson: Yes, we cut the check to her mother to reimburse her. We felt that suing a 12-year old in the Bronx wasn't the answer.

LR: Tell me more about P2P United.

GB: P2P United is basically trying to make sure that Congress doesn't do anything stupid, which they're apt to do in the technology world. We're trying to make sure to protect our rights to innovate and write software, and to address all of the bad mouthing the RIAA is constantly doing to P2P.

P2P was proven to be legal in that California decision. If there's anything we can do with respect to the overreach of the DMCA and invasion of privacy and, basically, due process -- we feel that there should be due process, and there should be an actual lawsuit before they are able to get information about users.

Congress is writing bills targeting P2P, and the RIAA is talking about pornography and homeland security and identity theft and all of these things that are really minor concerns, with regard to P2P. For the most part, Congress is either overreacting or doing the bidding of the RIAA.
O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference.

For instance, there was a hearing regarding P2P and porn a few weeks ago. There are already laws that exist to punish people for being pedophiles; P2P's got nothing to do with it. In these cases, the content itself is illegal. P2P is not the concern when it comes to child endangerment, but they are constantly targeting P2P. They should go look at AOL and Yahoo chat rooms rather than P2P networks. Orin Hatch's presentation of child pornography began with a movie sponsored by the RIAA. The record industry is probably the last group of people to be protecting children, when their lyrics and videos are so explicit.

So the RIAA is basically using the high $150,000 per infringement to extort a settlement out of people who wouldn't even consider fighting it. People view this more like a speeding ticket instead of something where one act of infringement can cost you $150,000. We're in favor of people being able to protect their copyrights, but in a way that is fair. If the government is going to regulate, they need to know what they're doing. They shouldn't be getting their information only from the RIAA.

LR: So are you trying to educate Congress?

GB: Yes. P2P United is trying to educate Congress. However, their staffers need to be willing to be educated. So far, they've been willfully blind or ignorant.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2003/11/14/limewire.html

Interview with LimeWire COO Greg Bildson
by Lisa Rein
11/14/2003

Greg Bildson is the COO of LimeWire and president of P2P United, a consortium of P2P software companies created to help educate Congress and the public about peer-to-peer software, technology, and culture. P2P United is the organization that paid 12-year-old Brianna LaHara's $2,000 RIAA settlement after the RIAA served her with a Digital Millennium Copyright Act subpoena.

Advertisement
P2P United is also trying to educate the RIAA about the many ways in which P2P technologies could be beneficial to its member companies. LimeWire's MagnetMix web site provides one example of the numerous ways that traditional web-based programming can be combined with P2P technologies to provide new kinds of experiences for music lovers.

In this interview, Lisa Rein catches up with Greg Bildson to hear his views on the state of P2P, the RIAA, and the challenge of educating lawmakers.
Yes, We Cut the Check

Lisa Rein: So, you guys paid Brianna's RIAA fine?

Greg Bildson: Yes, we cut the check to her mother to reimburse her. We felt that suing a 12-year old in the Bronx wasn't the answer.

LR: Tell me more about P2P United.

GB: P2P United is basically trying to make sure that Congress doesn't do anything stupid, which they're apt to do in the technology world. We're trying to make sure to protect our rights to innovate and write software, and to address all of the bad mouthing the RIAA is constantly doing to P2P.

P2P was proven to be legal in that California decision. If there's anything we can do with respect to the overreach of the DMCA and invasion of privacy and, basically, due process -- we feel that there should be due process, and there should be an actual lawsuit before they are able to get information about users.

Congress is writing bills targeting P2P, and the RIAA is talking about pornography and homeland security and identity theft and all of these things that are really minor concerns, with regard to P2P. For the most part, Congress is either overreacting or doing the bidding of the RIAA.
O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference.

For instance, there was a hearing regarding P2P and porn a few weeks ago. There are already laws that exist to punish people for being pedophiles; P2P's got nothing to do with it. In these cases, the content itself is illegal. P2P is not the concern when it comes to child endangerment, but they are constantly targeting P2P. They should go look at AOL and Yahoo chat rooms rather than P2P networks. Orin Hatch's presentation of child pornography began with a movie sponsored by the RIAA. The record industry is probably the last group of people to be protecting children, when their lyrics and videos are so explicit.

So the RIAA is basically using the high $150,000 per infringement to extort a settlement out of people who wouldn't even consider fighting it. People view this more like a speeding ticket instead of something where one act of infringement can cost you $150,000. We're in favor of people being able to protect their copyrights, but in a way that is fair. If the government is going to regulate, they need to know what they're doing. They shouldn't be getting their information only from the RIAA.

LR: So are you trying to educate Congress?

GB: Yes. P2P United is trying to educate Congress. However, their staffers need to be willing to be educated. So far, they've been willfully blind or ignorant.

LR: Do you think that the RIAA might eventually see the various ways that P2P could be beneficial to their business model?

GB: We hope so. We're seen as a threat to the record industry, but there's definitely potential for a win-win solution. The discussion needs to move beyond sound bites for soccer moms. Congress is making sound bites rather than thinking seriously about technology or innovation.

LR: What do you think of compulsories for file sharing?

GB: The big media companies -- the "Big 5" -- have had a lock on both distribution and licensing in the past. If the RIAA had let people license their music in the 90s, they wouldn't have the piracy problem they have today. There was a natural demand. There's a benefit to the current world of having music currently available.

LR: What about iTunes and Buymusic.com? What do you think of them?

GB: They're steps in the right direction, but they're still radically overpriced. In the digital age, there's no reason for a song to cost 99 cents; it should be five cents. Another issue is that the Microsoft DRM looks to be too restrictive. Judging by the trend of recent PC pay-per-download sites that all use Microsoft DRM, handing another monopoly to Microsoft doesn't seem like a smart move.

ETech 2004 Conference

Session by Robert Kay
Building Next Generation File Sharing With Social Software

This talk will present social network models, detection avoidance strategies, attack strategies and a real world safety evaluation of such systems.

O'Reilly Emerging Technologies Conference
February 9-12, 2004
San Diego, CA

LR: So what's Magnetmix?

GB: We've been putting the technology in place for this for a while. It's an example of integrating P2P networks and the Web. We think that's what the future is going to be. The Web can present things nicer and give you nice images, while the existing P2P networks just act as sort of a raw Google search. "Magnet links" can work into P2P networks for a richer experience by packaging the content into a single download. We think that it's going to appeal to content creators in the future. The portals will highlight high-quality, legitimate content for high-quality independent artists of all kinds.

So rather than running their own web servers, artists will create their content and then bundle it into a package media file that's just a .zip file with an index.html file inside to launch from. This file is placed on a P2P network. The entire experience is serialized, if you will, in these packages.

LR: So a user would see the web page, and then click on the link to get the music via a P2P network, rather than eating up bandwidth.

GB: Right, with videos and pictures and things.

LR: ...that would be expensive to serve on the web?

GB: Right. It's expensive to serve, but it's easy to use P2P to share. We think there are going to be a lot of creative independents in the future. And you can build the advertising vehicles right into the packages, if you want.

LR: So how can artists implement this technology now?

GB: Anybody can put magnet links up. We're also accepting submissions and hosting content ourselves. It doesn't cost anything, and we don't see money being involved in the future.

LR: How would this work, actually?

GB: Right now people don't know what magnet links are, but in the near future, people will be using the LimeWire "Library." The LimeWire Library is a type of file browser. Within the Library tab of the LimeWire application, you will be able to view and create magnet links to files that you share, and be able to email links to these files. There will be options to view the magnet link or email the magnet link to others, so that they can click a link in their email to launch the magnet link "packages." The links will launch their LimeWire P2P client right from their email client.

LR: Is LimeWire cross-platform?

GB: Yes. It's cross-platform. It's in Java.

LR How many LimeWire users are there?

GB: We lost ability to track our users a while ago. But we've had at least 300,000 users a day for a while. We're pretty close to 50/50 on the Mac and PC platforms.

Lisa Rein is a co-founder of Creative Commons, a video blogger at On Lisa Rein's Radar, and a singer-songwriter-musican at lisarein.com.

C-notes for Brianna
Outpouring of donations in download suit
By Helen Kennedy for the NY Daily News.

Furious music lovers nationwide flooded 12-year-old Brianna LaHara of Manhattan with donations yesterday to help pay off her debt to the recording business.

From $3 pledges for the Help Brianna fund to $1,000 offers, hundreds of people wanted to help pay the $2,000 settlement between Brianna and the Recording Industry Association of America.
"The whole deal with going after the actual consumer - and the fact that it's a 12-year-old girl with a single mother who lives in the projects - well, these people have no decency," said Taylor Finley, a California film student who started the Help Brianna fund.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nydailynews.com/09-08-2003/city_life/tech/story/116741p-105168c.html

Originally published on September 11, 2003
C-notes for Brianna
Outpouring of donations in download suit
By HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Furious music lovers nationwide flooded 12-year-old Brianna LaHara of Manhattan with donations yesterday to help pay off her debt to the recording business.

From $3 pledges for the Help Brianna fund to $1,000 offers, hundreds of people wanted to help pay the $2,000 settlement between Brianna and the Recording Industry Association of America.
"The whole deal with going after the actual consumer - and the fact that it's a 12-year-old girl with a single mother who lives in the projects - well, these people have no decency," said Taylor Finley, a California film student who started the Help Brianna fund.

An upper West Side honors student, Brianna was among 261 users of the KaZaA Internet file-sharing service hit by RIAA copyright violation lawsuits demanding as much as $150 million.

The girl said she thought downloading songs by Christina Aguilera and hundreds of other artists without paying a dime and offering to share the songs online was fine because she had bought a $29 premium version of KaZaA. Faced with unimaginable fines, Brianna's mom, Sylvia Torres, quickly agreed to a settlement offered by the RIAA.

Brianna's plight crystallized the outrage many feel about the RIAA's new get-tough policies after years of complaining about illegal Web downloaders and millions in lost sales but not taking legal action.
"I'm not spending another dime on CDs until they drop these lawsuits and apologize," said Charles Scott of Louisiana, who sent Brianna a $50 check.

Sympathetic face

Brianna - and 71-year-old Durwood Pickle of Texas, whose visiting grandkids illegally downloaded songs on his computer - put a sympathetic face on what the RIAA calls music pirates.

"The real hope here is that people will return to the record store," said Eric Garland, CEO of BigCampagne, which tracks peer-to-peer Internet trends. "The biggest question is whether singling out a handful of copyright infringers will invigorate business or drive file-sharing further underground, further out of reach."

But should "12-year-olds and grandmothers and grandfathers be subjected to the kind of terror campaign that this industry is waging?" asked Adam Eisgrau, executive director of P2P United, a trade group representing six other file-sharing companies.

Acknowledging the fury, RIAA Vice President Matt Oppenheim said he was not surprised to see young and old alike caught in the snare.

"We know that there are a lot of young people who are using these services and we totally expected that we would end up targeting them," Oppenheim said. "As we have said from the beginning ... there is no free pass to engage in music piracy just because you haven't come of age."

With Derek Rose

Activity on Song - Swapping Networks Steady
By Reuters.

Activity on file-sharing networks has not missed a beat this week despite the record industry's high-profile lawsuits against individual song-swappers, industry trackers and executives said on Thursday.

"There's no mass exodus, that's safe to say. Ironically, usage this week and this month is up," said Eric Garland, a spokesman for BigChampagne, a research firm that tracks peer-to-peer networks that enable file-swapping between different computers.

"We've been looking at dramatic increases on the FastTrack Network. The number of people using these file sharing services in the first 10 days of September is up more than 20 percent from the August average," he said...

Greg Bildson, chief technology officer for LimeWire, said traffic on the Gnutella network, the underlying network that LimeWire, BearShare, Morpheus tap into, has not been affected.

Peer-to-peer officials said people would likely improve ways to conceal their identities to avoid lawsuits.

"If you're smart, and most file-sharers are, you can insulate yourself," said Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster, which is involved in a suit of its own against the industry.

Rosso said the lawsuits only wasted money, alienated music fans and will have less of a shock value in the future.

"The next time, the suits won't get this kind of media coverage. They're a desperate and dying industry," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-media-riaa.html?pagewanted=print&position=
September 11, 2003
Filed at 8:34 p.m. ET
Activity on Song - Swapping Networks Steady
By REUTERS

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Activity on file-sharing networks has not missed a beat this week despite the record industry's high-profile lawsuits against individual song-swappers, industry trackers and executives said on Thursday.

``There's no mass exodus, that's safe to say. Ironically, usage this week and this month is up,'' said Eric Garland, a spokesman for BigChampagne, a research firm that tracks peer-to-peer networks that enable file-swapping between different computers.

``We've been looking at dramatic increases on the FastTrack Network. The number of people using these file sharing services in the first 10 days of September is up more than 20 percent from the August average,'' he said.

FastTrack is the network used by the popular Kazaa and Grokster peer-to-peer networks. The average amount of simultaneous users on more popular services topped 4 million this week, versus 3.3 million in August, he said.

The Recording Industry Association of America filed suit against 261 people on Monday for allegedly pirating songs online and plans to file many more to curb activity on the networks, which it blames for a drop in CD sales.

``On the face of it, this is the opposite of what the RIAA intended,'' Garland said.

The RIAA shrugged aside the data. ``We don't put much stock into many of these estimates. Clearly our enforcement efforts have stimulated conversation among parents, children and many others about the illegality of distributing copyrighted music online and its consequences,'' said an RIAA spokesman.

``The objective here is to create an environment where legitimate online services can grow and thrive,'' he said.

Garland said he expects some people will be scared by potential exposure and increased parental pressure.

``But what we're hearing from users is they enjoy safety in numbers,'' he said, adding, ``there's a perception that suing even a few thousand means the odds of getting sued are like the odds of getting struck by lightning,'' he said.

``If it starts to taper off in October and November, then you can clearly say something is deterring activity. But at the moment, these services are very popular with the back-to-school rush,'' he said.

Greg Bildson, chief technology officer for LimeWire, said traffic on the Gnutella network, the underlying network that LimeWire, BearShare, Morpheus tap into, has not been affected.

Peer-to-peer officials said people would likely improve ways to conceal their identities to avoid lawsuits.

``If you're smart, and most file-sharers are, you can insulate yourself,'' said Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster, which is involved in a suit of its own against the industry.

Rosso said the lawsuits only wasted money, alienated music fans and will have less of a shock value in the future.

``The next time, the suits won't get this kind of media coverage. They're a desperate and dying industry,'' he said.

The RIAA released a survey this week showing a slim majority supported its move to target individuals. The survey of just over 800 people was completed on Sept. 6, two days before the suits were filed but after the industry announced its intentions in June.

Some industry watchers argue music companies would get better results by spending money on more heavily promoting legal alternatives such as Apple Computer Inc's Itunes and RealNetworks Inc's Rhapsody service and others.

``The suits are a step in the right direction, but there's still a lot of problems like the fact that more and more people are burning and sharing CDs with friends,'' said Lee Black, analyst with Jupiter Research.

The RIAA is suing "liquidlevel," one of Moby.com's board members!

Moby "can't see any good in coming from punishing people for being music fans and making the effort to hear new music." Right on dude!

He says he's tempted to use Kazaa to download some of his own music, just to see if he got sued.

Of course, they probably wouldn't, once they knew it was him. Because presumably, Moby is the copyright owner of his own music.

But this raises other questions about a musician's right to use the internet to promote themselves -- even if the record company says "no." Why would a record label punish an artist for trying to promote themselves (to sell more records or concert tickets)? It just doesn't make sense.

This all has a lot to do with the revolution that I have predicted (or instigated, depending on how you look at it :-)

Moby Tour Diary Update - RIAA 9/29/2003 - New York City

so apparently the riaa are sueing one of our very own moby.com board members, liquidlevel, for file-sharing.
personally i just can't see any good in coming from punishing people for being music fans and making the effort to hear new music.
i'm almost tempted to go onto kazaa and download some of my own music, just to see if the riaa would sue me for having mp3's of my own songs on my hard-drive.
-moby

Librarians to P2P critics: Shhh!
By Declan McCullagh for CNET.

In a hotly contested lawsuit before a federal appeals court, two peer-to-peer companies are about to gain a vast army of allies: America's librarians.

The five major U.S. library associations are planning to file a legal brief Friday siding with Streamcast Networks and Grokster in the California suit, brought by the major record labels and Hollywood studios. The development could complicate the Recording Industry Association of America's efforts to portray file-swapping services as rife with spam and illegal pornography.

According to an attorney who has seen the document, the brief argues that Streamcast--distributor of the Morpheus software--and Grokster should not be shut down. It asks the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the April decision by a Los Angeles judge that dismissed much of the entertainment industry's suit against the two peer-to-peer companies.

Among the groups signing the brief are the American Library Association (ALA), the Association of Research Libraries, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Medical Library Association and the Special Libraries Association. The American Civil Liberties Union, in one of the group's first forays into copyright law, has drafted the brief opposing the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

A central argument of the brief is that the district court got it right when applying a 1984 Supreme Court decision to the Internet. That decision, Sony v. Universal City, said Sony could continue to manufacture its Betamax VCR because a company "cannot be a contributory (copyright) infringer if, as is true in this case, it has had no direct involvement with any infringing activity."

"The amicus brief will make the point that we are not supporting the wrongful sharing of copyrighted materials," ALA Executive Director Keith Michael Fiels wrote in an internal e-mail seen by CNET News.com. An amicus brief is one filed by a third, uninvolved party that comments on a particular matter of law. "Instead, we believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly in the Sony/Betamax case. The court in that case created fair and practical rules which, if overturned, would as a practical matter give the entertainment industry a veto power over the development of innovative products and services."...

The ACLU said Thursday that the brief argues that peer-to-peer networks are speech-promoting technologies that have many noninfringing uses. If the MPAA and the RIAA succeed in shutting down peer-to-peer networks or making them more centralized, the precedent could create undesirable choke points that could be used to monitor Internet users, the ACLU said.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.com.com/2102-1032_3-5082684.html?tag=ni_print
Last modified: September 25, 2003, 5:40 PM PDT
Librarians to P2P critics: Shhh!
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

In a hotly contested lawsuit before a federal appeals court, two peer-to-peer companies are about to gain a vast army of allies: America's librarians.

The five major U.S. library associations are planning to file a legal brief Friday siding with Streamcast Networks and Grokster in the California suit, brought by the major record labels and Hollywood studios. The development could complicate the Recording Industry Association of America's efforts to portray file-swapping services as rife with spam and illegal pornography.

According to an attorney who has seen the document, the brief argues that Streamcast--distributor of the Morpheus software--and Grokster should not be shut down. It asks the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the April decision by a Los Angeles judge that dismissed much of the entertainment industry's suit against the two peer-to-peer companies.

Among the groups signing the brief are the American Library Association (ALA), the Association of Research Libraries, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Medical Library Association and the Special Libraries Association. The American Civil Liberties Union, in one of the group's first forays into copyright law, has drafted the brief opposing the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

A central argument of the brief is that the district court got it right when applying a 1984 Supreme Court decision to the Internet. That decision, Sony v. Universal City, said Sony could continue to manufacture its Betamax VCR because a company "cannot be a contributory (copyright) infringer if, as is true in this case, it has had no direct involvement with any infringing activity."

"The amicus brief will make the point that we are not supporting the wrongful sharing of copyrighted materials," ALA Executive Director Keith Michael Fiels wrote in an internal e-mail seen by CNET News.com. An amicus brief is one filed by a third, uninvolved party that comments on a particular matter of law. "Instead, we believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly in the Sony/Betamax case. The court in that case created fair and practical rules which, if overturned, would as a practical matter give the entertainment industry a veto power over the development of innovative products and services."

The librarians' entry into the political fray over whether file-swapping networks should be shut down or not may complicate the RIAA's public relations strategy. The music industry group has been taking increasingly aggressive legal action against alleged infringers and has told Congress that "a significant percentage of the files available to these 13 million new users per month are pornography, including child pornography." The RIAA could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

The ACLU said Thursday that the brief argues that peer-to-peer networks are speech-promoting technologies that have many noninfringing uses. If the MPAA and the RIAA succeed in shutting down peer-to-peer networks or making them more centralized, the precedent could create undesirable choke points that could be used to monitor Internet users, the ACLU said.

The RIAA and MPAA jointly filed the lawsuit in October 2001, launching what has become the most widely watched Internet copyright case since Napster. Their original complaint accuses Streamcast and Grokster of earning "advertising revenue by attracting millions of users to their systems by offering them a treasure trove of pirated music, movies and other copyrighted media."

A.C.L.U. Challenges Music Industry in Court
By John Schwartz for the NY Times.
(Thanks, Jason.)

The civil liberties group argues that the constitutional rights of its client, referred to as Jane Doe, would be violated if her college, which is also her Internet service provider, were forced to reveal her name. The industry subpoena "seeks to strip Jane Doe of her fundamental right to anonymity," according to the group's court filings.

The industry subpoena is one of many recently filed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law that gives copyright holders broad powers to get the names of suspected infringers from Internet service providers.

But the civil liberties suit claims that the subpoenas, which can be issued with little judicial oversight or involvement, go beyond even what the law allows. The group also claims that the law itself is unconstitutional, because it does not provide for the judicial review of requests or notification of the target of the investigation.

"We're not saying that they can't ever get her identity," said Christopher A. Hansen, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're only saying if the industry wants her identity, then they have to do it in a fair way."...

Also today, a group that opposes the suits, Downhill Battle, is expected to announce the creation of a legal defense fund for those caught up in the file-trading suits. "If we make noise for all those who've been sued and give the people who want to fight in court the resources to do so, we can make these lawsuits fail," the group said on its Web site, downhillbattle.org.

A.C.L.U. Challenges Music Industry in Court
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Published: September 29, 2003

Stepping up its involvement in the legal conflict over file sharing, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a motion to stop attempts by the music industry to get the name of a Boston College student who is accused of being a large-scale file trader.

In court papers that were filed on Friday and will be announced today, the group said that Boston College should not be forced to reveal the identity of the student.

Advertisement

The civil liberties group argues that the constitutional rights of its client, referred to as Jane Doe, would be violated if her college, which is also her Internet service provider, were forced to reveal her name. The industry subpoena "seeks to strip Jane Doe of her fundamental right to anonymity," according to the group's court filings.

The industry subpoena is one of many recently filed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law that gives copyright holders broad powers to get the names of suspected infringers from Internet service providers.

But the civil liberties suit claims that the subpoenas, which can be issued with little judicial oversight or involvement, go beyond even what the law allows. The group also claims that the law itself is unconstitutional, because it does not provide for the judicial review of requests or notification of the target of the investigation.

"We're not saying that they can't ever get her identity," said Christopher A. Hansen, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're only saying if the industry wants her identity, then they have to do it in a fair way."

The issues are similar to those in a case between the industry and Verizon that began in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In that case, the company, as an Internet service provider, is fighting attempts to compel it to reveal the identities of customers who are accused of being major file traders. The A.C.L.U. filed a brief in that case.

Those challenges to the law have already been rejected, and the issues have been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

That is why Amy Weiss, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said, "I feel like Bill Murray in 'Groundhog Day,' '' referring to a film about a man who has to live the same day over and over again. "They are relitigating the same issues that Verizon argued unsuccessfully."

Meanwhile, opposition to the recording industry's lawsuits has coalesced into a number of new initiatives. A fledgling trade association for companies offering file-trading software and services was preparing to announce a code of conduct for its industry in Washington today. Representatives of Morpheus, Grokster, Lime Wire, StreamCast and others are expected to discuss the legal tactics of the entertainment industry and to call on Congress to "stop record industry abuses" under the new rubric "P2P United," named for the abbreviated term for file sharing technology known as peer-to-peer.

Also today, a group that opposes the suits, Downhill Battle, is expected to announce the creation of a legal defense fund for those caught up in the file-trading suits. "If we make noise for all those who've been sued and give the people who want to fight in court the resources to do so, we can make these lawsuits fail," the group said on its Web site, downhillbattle.org.

There's a revolution going on guys, and it starts today!

Musicians are going to stand up for their right to use the Internet to promote their music.

Listeners are going to stand up for their right to not be spied on and treated as criminals for sharing that music.

Ready, set....GO!

Here's an awesome MP3 that will serve nicely as its theme song (courtesy of Zug):
RIAA Phone Call

Here's more information about it.
(Thanks, Jason.)

Lyrics:

well i recollect the days when music was free
you could tape from the radio, burn a CD
now the RIAA wants to know about me
my address, my number, my ISP
yo, bitches, ain't we still got privacy?
why the president be lettin' you spy on me
how many tricks they gonna be lettin you try on me?
trying to be spying on my MP3s

But you protect YOUR corporate privacy
Keep your phone number hidden from the bourgeoisie
Your customers have to play hide and seek
So here's the number to call if you disagree

775-0101
775-0101
202-775-0101

why's the RIAA starting litigations
the cops should be looking for the real perpetrations
the killers, the racists, the rapists
'stead of fucking with us for saving to our hard disk
raise your middle finger if you feel me loc
these fucking subpoenas are a fucking joke
leave us alone, throw us a bone
like i did with your mom that time at your home

There's NO SUCH THING as bad publicity
Even if you giving it out for free
So join us in the twenty-first century
Where we find our new songs on MP3s
Embrace the new technologies
Grokster, Kazaa, and P2P
So call this number now, and help them see
And if you call from work, your call is free!

775-0101
775-0101
202-775-0101

202 is the area code and we're dialin'
775 and then we be smilin'
0101-1-cary sherman
well isn't this fun it's ZUG.com

you know, they've never been fair to the bands.
now the riaa takes a stand?
can't believe we're getting preached to by the man
so what's the plan, stan? I've got a short attention span.

they've gotta change up the music industry
make it all available on MP3
listen to people like you and me
and make us wanna pay a monthly fee

this song is now my lyrical catastrophe
go ahead and grab it, it's completely free
aint gotta pay a dime to listen to me
So share this song and fuck the industry

She Says She's No Music Pirate. No Snoop Fan, Either.
By John Schwartz for the NY Times.

Mrs. Ward, a 66-year-old sculptor and retired schoolteacher, received notice on Sept. 11 from the Recording Industry Association of America that she was being accused of engaging in millions of dollars worth of copyright infringement, downloading thousands of songs and sharing them with the world through a popular file-sharing program called KaZaA.

Mrs. Ward was deeply confused by the accusations, which have disrupted her gentle life in the suburbs of Boston. She does not trade music, she says, does not have any younger music-loving relatives living with her, and does not use her computer for much more than sending e-mail and checking the tides. Even then, her husband does the typing...

On Friday, the industry group dropped its suit against Mrs. Ward, but reserved the right to sue again. An industry spokeswoman denied that any mistake had been made...

But those opposed to the recording industry's legal tactics say that the case suggests that the methods used to track down music pirates are flawed. They argue that Mrs. Ward is probably not the only mistaken case in the recording industry dragnet.

Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group concerned with civil liberties in the digital age, said that her organization was talking with dozens of people who say they have been sued but do not trade files.

In a number of the 261 lawsuits the industry has filed so far, members of the household other than the named defendant might have had access to the machines, she said. But some of those being sued, she added, are contending that their cases are purely ones of mistaken identity.

That is exactly what Mrs. Ward says happened to her. Not only does nobody else use her computer in more than a passing way, the computer, an Apple Macintosh, is not even capable of running the KaZaA file-swapping program. And though the lawsuit against her said that she was heavily into the works of hip-hop artists like Snoop Dogg, Ms. Ward says her musical tastes run to Celtic and folk.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the links go bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/business/media/25TUNE.html

She Says She's No Music Pirate. No Snoop Fan, Either.
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Published: September 25, 2003

Sarah Ward was stunned when the record industry sued her for being a music pirate.

Mrs. Ward, a 66-year-old sculptor and retired schoolteacher, received notice on Sept. 11 from the Recording Industry Association of America that she was being accused of engaging in millions of dollars worth of copyright infringement, downloading thousands of songs and sharing them with the world through a popular file-sharing program called KaZaA.

Mrs. Ward was deeply confused by the accusations, which have disrupted her gentle life in the suburbs of Boston. She does not trade music, she says, does not have any younger music-loving relatives living with her, and does not use her computer for much more than sending e-mail and checking the tides. Even then, her husband does the typing.

"I'm a very much dyslexic person who has not actually engaged using the computer as a tool yet," she explained in her first interview about the case.

On Friday, the industry group dropped its suit against Mrs. Ward, but reserved the right to sue again. An industry spokeswoman denied that any mistake had been made.

"We have chosen to give her the benefit of the doubt and are continuing to look into the facts," said Amy Weiss, a spokeswoman for the music industry association. She also denied that there were serious disputes about the facts of any other suits. "This is the only case of its kind," Ms. Weiss said.

But those opposed to the recording industry's legal tactics say that the case suggests that the methods used to track down music pirates are flawed. They argue that Mrs. Ward is probably not the only mistaken case in the recording industry dragnet.

Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group concerned with civil liberties in the digital age, said that her organization was talking with dozens of people who say they have been sued but do not trade files.

In a number of the 261 lawsuits the industry has filed so far, members of the household other than the named defendant might have had access to the machines, she said. But some of those being sued, she added, are contending that their cases are purely ones of mistaken identity.

That is exactly what Mrs. Ward says happened to her. Not only does nobody else use her computer in more than a passing way, the computer, an Apple Macintosh, is not even capable of running the KaZaA file-swapping program. And though the lawsuit against her said that she was heavily into the works of hip-hop artists like Snoop Dogg, Ms. Ward says her musical tastes run to Celtic and folk.

Ms. Ward said that she was fortunate to have several lawyers in her family, and a son-in-law, Dan Levy, who is knowledgeable about the Internet and the file-trading wars. He put her in touch with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is based in San Francisco.

"They picked the wrong little old lady to sue," Mr. Levy said. "This case alone should put the record companies on notice that their method of associating KaZaA user names with addresses is flawed."

An official of Mrs. Ward's Internet service provider, Comcast, said that the company had investigated the case and that it gave the right name associated with the Internet identifier, known as an I.P. number, that the industry lawyers demanded. But like many service providers, Comcast issues its I.P. numbers "dynamically," with the numbers shifting each time a user goes online. Both Comcast and the recording industry group say they can accurately trace the I.P. number back to a single user; nonetheless, identifying a particular user can be tricky.

Although Ms. Ward's identity may have been mistaken, the strategy of suing people of all ages and musical tastes is intentional, said Mike Godwin, a lawyer with Public Knowledge, a policy group seeking a middle ground in the piracy fight.

The idea, he said, is to make average people understand that they, too, could be hit with a suit for sharing songs. "If they target `Tattoo Guy,' who's out of a job but has access to an M.I.T. online account and is downloading songs and selling bootleg CD's out of the trunk of his car, nobody identifies with him," he said.

Ms. Weiss of the recording industry association said that the strategy was, in fact, working as planned. "This is a campaign of deterrence," she said, "and we want to send a strong message that this activity is illegal and there are consequences." Therefore, she said, "we are casting a wide net."

Groups like Public Knowledge and another Washington policy group, the Center for Democracy and Technology, agree with the industry claim that it has a right to pursue copyright infringers and say that suing individuals is a valid strategy so long as the most egregious violators are made the target. But these groups say that the industry must use its newly granted subpoena powers with care, and they suggest that both more judicial oversight and better warnings for those being investigated are needed.

Ms. Ward says she has been shaken by the accusation and threat of heavy penalties, which left her unable to sleep. She says she worries about people less equipped to fight. "We had emotional support and very skilled resources to turn to," she said. "What happens to people who don't have that in their life to clear their names or defend themselves?"

To Ms. Cohn, the case shows that the industry does not recognize the effect that its tactics are having on average people. To corporations, "litigation is just the cost of doing business," she said. "But it isn't just the cost of doing business with the people who they've targeted here."

Though the possibility of a revived lawsuit worries her, Ms. Ward said that the most troubling issue that remains for her is the absence of an apology from the industry group.

"When we can't make human amends to things," she said, "then we don't have a way forward."

Recording industry withdraws suit
Mistaken identity raises questions on legal strategy
By Chris Gaither for the Boston Globe. (Hiawatha Bray also contributed to this report.)
(Thanks, Mary.)

The recording industry has withdrawn a lawsuit against a Newbury woman because it falsely accused her of illegally sharing music -- possibly the first case of mistaken identity in the battle against Internet file-traders.

Privacy advocates said the suit against Sarah Seabury Ward, a sculptor who said she has never downloaded or digitally shared a song, revealed flaws in the Recording Industry Association of America's legal strategy. Ward was caught up in a flood of 261 lawsuits filed two weeks ago that targeted people who, through software programs like Kazaa, make copyrighted songs available for others to download over the Internet.

''When the RIAA announced they were going on this litigation crusade, we knew there was going to be someone like Sarah Ward,'' said Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet privacy group in San Francisco that has advised Ward and others sued by the music industry. ''And we think were will be more.''

The lawsuit claimed that Ward had illegally shared more than 2,000 songs through Kazaa and threatened to hold her liable for up to $150,000 for each song. The plaintiffs were Sony Music, BMG, Virgin, Interscope, Atlantic, Warner Brothers, and Arista.

Among the songs she was accused of sharing: ''I'm a Thug,'' by the rapper Trick Daddy.

But Ward, 66, is a ''computer neophyte'' who never installed file-sharing software, let alone downloaded hard-core rap about baggy jeans and gold teeth, according to letters sent to the recording industry's agents by her lawyer, Jeffrey Beeler.

Other defendants have blamed their children for using file-sharing software, but Ward has no children living with her, Beeler said.

Moreover, Ward uses a Macintosh computer at home. Kazaa runs only on Windows-based personal computers.

Beeler complained to the RIAA, demanding an apology and ''dismissal with prejudice'' of the lawsuit, which would prohibit future lawsuits against her. Foley Hoag, the Boston firm representing the record labels, on Friday dropped the case, but without prejudice...

Evan Cox, a partner with Covington & Burling in San Francisco who is not involved with the case, said the error most likely happened in one of two ways: Either Comcast matched the wrong customer with the IP address, or the recording industry requested information about the wrong IP address, which is usually more than nine digits.

''If any of those [IP address] numbers are wrong or transposed, you're going to get the wrong person,'' Cohn said.

Whatever the source of the apparent error, it illustrates how difficult it can be to definitively match a person to an online screen name.

A Comcast spokeswoman, Sarah Eder, would not comment, citing customer privacy concerns. Comcast always notifies its customers after a subpoena compels the company to release information about them, she said.

Mistakes are likely, given the number of cases the recording industry has filed, Cox said. The industry's reputation could hang on how many mistakes surface.

''If there turns out to be a lot of them, it will cast some doubt on [the industry's] evidence-gathering,'' he said. ''They'll have to either strengthen their efforts or back off.''

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has counseled about 30 of the 261 people sued, Cohn said, adding that some have settled for fear of spending too much money fighting powerful corporations.

Jonathan Zittrain, an associate professor of Internet law at Harvard Law School, said the dismissal shows that the record companies may find it tough to prevail if their lawsuits go to court. Their legal strategy assumes that most defendants will settle rather than fight, and the lawsuits are so damaging to their public image that they cannot afford protracted legal battles with alleged file-swappers, he added.

''This is a very high-stakes strategy for the record companies,'' he said. ''It's either going to work in the short term, or they're going to have to pull the plug on it.''

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/267/business/Recording_industry_withdraws_suit+.shtml

Recording industry withdraws suit
Mistaken identity raises questions on legal strategy

By Chris Gaither, Globe Staff, 9/24/2003

The recording industry has withdrawn a lawsuit against a Newbury woman because it falsely accused her of illegally sharing music -- possibly the first case of mistaken identity in the battle against Internet file-traders.

Privacy advocates said the suit against Sarah Seabury Ward, a sculptor who said she has never downloaded or digitally shared a song, revealed flaws in the Recording Industry Association of America's legal strategy. Ward was caught up in a flood of 261 lawsuits filed two weeks ago that targeted people who, through software programs like Kazaa, make copyrighted songs available for others to download over the Internet.

''When the RIAA announced they were going on this litigation crusade, we knew there was going to be someone like Sarah Ward,'' said Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet privacy group in San Francisco that has advised Ward and others sued by the music industry. ''And we think were will be more.''

The lawsuit claimed that Ward had illegally shared more than 2,000 songs through Kazaa and threatened to hold her liable for up to $150,000 for each song. The plaintiffs were Sony Music, BMG, Virgin, Interscope, Atlantic, Warner Brothers, and Arista.

Among the songs she was accused of sharing: ''I'm a Thug,'' by the rapper Trick Daddy.

But Ward, 66, is a ''computer neophyte'' who never installed file-sharing software, let alone downloaded hard-core rap about baggy jeans and gold teeth, according to letters sent to the recording industry's agents by her lawyer, Jeffrey Beeler.

Other defendants have blamed their children for using file-sharing software, but Ward has no children living with her, Beeler said.

Moreover, Ward uses a Macintosh computer at home. Kazaa runs only on Windows-based personal computers.

Beeler complained to the RIAA, demanding an apology and ''dismissal with prejudice'' of the lawsuit, which would prohibit future lawsuits against her. Foley Hoag, the Boston firm representing the record labels, on Friday dropped the case, but without prejudice.

''Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant,'' Colin J. Zick, the Foley Hoag lawyer, wrote to Beeler.

The trade group released Zick's letter late yesterday and said it would have no other comment.

It is unclear where the apparent mistake originated.

According to the lawsuit, recording industry investigators tracked the file-sharing activities of a Kazaa user with the moniker Heath7 and found the unique numeric identifier, known as an Internet Protocol (IP) address, that was assigned to the user by the Internet service provider at the time.

The recording industry then issued a subpoena to Comcast, the user's Internet service provider, demanding the name, address, and e-mail address of the person behind the IP address.

Evan Cox, a partner with Covington & Burling in San Francisco who is not involved with the case, said the error most likely happened in one of two ways: Either Comcast matched the wrong customer with the IP address, or the recording industry requested information about the wrong IP address, which is usually more than nine digits.

''If any of those [IP address] numbers are wrong or transposed, you're going to get the wrong person,'' Cohn said.

Whatever the source of the apparent error, it illustrates how difficult it can be to definitively match a person to an online screen name.

A Comcast spokeswoman, Sarah Eder, would not comment, citing customer privacy concerns. Comcast always notifies its customers after a subpoena compels the company to release information about them, she said.

Mistakes are likely, given the number of cases the recording industry has filed, Cox said. The industry's reputation could hang on how many mistakes surface.

''If there turns out to be a lot of them, it will cast some doubt on [the industry's] evidence-gathering,'' he said. ''They'll have to either strengthen their efforts or back off.''

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has counseled about 30 of the 261 people sued, Cohn said, adding that some have settled for fear of spending too much money fighting powerful corporations.

Jonathan Zittrain, an associate professor of Internet law at Harvard Law School, said the dismissal shows that the record companies may find it tough to prevail if their lawsuits go to court. Their legal strategy assumes that most defendants will settle rather than fight, and the lawsuits are so damaging to their public image that they cannot afford protracted legal battles with alleged file-swappers, he added.

''This is a very high-stakes strategy for the record companies,'' he said. ''It's either going to work in the short term, or they're going to have to pull the plug on it.''

Chris Gaither can be reached at gaither@globe.com. Hiawatha Bray of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

This report has great coverage of the situation surrounding Briana LaHara, the 12-year-old girl who was the first to settle one of the RIAA's 261 copyright infringement lawsuits for $2,000. (However, Jon neglected to mention that filesharers around the world have since come to Briana's rescue.)

Daily Show On The RIAA's First Settlement Victim (Small - 8 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

I've written my first article in almost two years! I've got the bug again and there will be plenty more where that came from, promise. This ones about -- you guessed it, the RIAA's latest bait and switch mechanism for fighting file sharing. Hope you like it.

Commentary: What's Real and Make-Believe with the RIAA Subpoenas?
By Lisa Rein for OpenP2P.com.

A key issue remains that the RIAA does not even have the right to grant full amnesty in the first place. The songwriters and music publishers that aren't represented by the RIAA (such as Metallica) could opt to sue infringers on their own. "The RIAA doesn't have the right to give full amnesty for file sharing. True, they represent 90% of all sound recording copyright owners. But there are still 10 percent out there who could sue you even if you take amnesty program," said Jason Schultz, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's still unclear if amnesty saves you from being sued by the songwriters/music publishers."

Clean Slate's Privacy Policy raises other questions. It states that "information provided on the Clean Slate Program Affidavit will be used solely in connection with conducting and enforcing the Clean Slate Program" and not used for "marketing, promotional, or public relations purposes" and will "not be made public or given to third parties, including individual copyright owners," but then there's a big exception: "except if necessary to enforce a participant's violation of the pledges set forth in the Affidavit or otherwise required by law." This language, translated, means that the affidavit records would in fact be made available to other infringement lawsuits.

"We're calling it a 'Shamnesty.' It's more like a Trojan Horse than a 'clean slate.' It fools you into thinking you're safe, when the reality is that, if anything, you're more at risk for participating," explains Jason Schultz, Staff Attorney for the EFF. "It's not 'Full Amnesty' at all. The agreement doesn't give file sharers any real peace of mind, because it only covers being sued by the RIAA itself -- not any of its member companies. This means that, under the Clean Slate agreement, recording companies, copyright owners, and music publishers can all still sue you. It only means that the RIAA won't 'assist' them in the lawsuit. They are basically getting you to admit to the conduct so your own statement can be used against you later."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2003/09/11/riaa_supoenas.html

Commentary: What's Real and Make-Believe with the RIAA Subpoenas?
by Lisa Rein
09/11/2003

What's real and what's make-believe about the RIAA's recent subpoena campaign and it's newly announced "Amnesty" program?

A recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finds that a party using "patently unlawful" subpoenas to obtain access to another party's stored electronic communications could be liable for violations of electronic privacy and computer fraud statutes. This could have serious implications for the RIAA's mass subpoena campaign in that, if such subpoenas were also determined to be "patently unlawful," for whatever reason, the organization could be held liable under electronic privacy and computer fraud statutes for accessing user data under false pretenses. (Read a summary of the decision.)

Does this mean, if the RIAA's subpoenas are determined "invalid," that they are illegally snooping? It's extremely possible. However, the DMCA subpoena law is new and there aren't many decisions on it, so the RIAA could try to hide behind the "newness" of the law to avoid liability for misusing it.

If the RIAA's subpoenas were determined to be "patently unlawful," file sharers could potentially retaliate with lawsuits for alleged electronic privacy and computer fraud violations if the RIAA's counsel knowingly misuses the subpoena process in order to gain access to file sharers' private information.

Any lawyer has the authority as an Officer of the Court to serve anyone they wish with a subpoena, but such authority must not be abused. According to the decision, the subpoena was a clear violation of the Federal Rules. Although Kozinski implies that NetGate should have known that, he also says that even if they didn't, the lawyers who issued the subpoena should have and therefore knew or should have known they were deceiving NetGate:

"The subpoena power is a substantial delegation of authority to private parties, and those who invoke it have a grave responsibility to ensure it is not abused. Informing the person served of his right to object is a good start, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(1)(D), but it is no substitute for the exercise of independent judgement about the subpoena's reasonableness."

Most larger ISPs have legal departments, but smaller ones often can't afford to hire a lawyer, especially for every subpoena they get. In the decision, Kozinski points out that recipients are often being cowed into compliance:

"Fighting a subpoena in court is not cheap, and many may be cowed into compliance with even over broad subpoenas, especially if they are not represented by counsel or have no personal stake."

Since June 2003, the RIAA's mass subpoena campaign has been serving ISPs in an attempt to find out the identities of file sharers. So far, 1300 subpoenas are in the EFF database system, and more are being added all the time. "ISPs" ranging from large-scale service providers (such as Comcast, SBC, Time Warner, Verizon, Earthlink, and America Online) to educational institutions (such as New York University, Boston College, MIT, and Columbia) have been served. (View the complete list as compiled by the EFF database.)
Difficult for ISPs, Especially Smaller Ones

The reactions from the ISPs have been varied, depending on the size and caliber of the institution. MIT and Boston College were able to have their subpoenas quashed after it was discovered that they had been incorrectly filed out of jurisdiction. (The RIAA was trying to cut costs by filing all of their subpoenas from a single court in Washington, D.C., when in fact such filings must be done within 100 miles of the offending party.) Some of the larger ISPs, such as Pac Bell and Verizon, have challenged the validity of the subpoenas in any court, asserting that they violate constitutional Due Process and various federal rules and statutes.

Theoretically, subpoenas are filed with discretion, often during "discovery" after a lawsuit has already been filed. However, the DMCA specifically departs from this common practice by allowing the RIAA to issue subpoenas before having to file even a single lawsuit; in fact, all that the RIAA needs to subpoena someone's personal data is a "good faith belief" that the person is infringing their copyrights, which, when it comes to file sharing, is pretty much every one of the 60 million users, in the eyes of the RIAA. This "pre-emptive" subpoena power is exactly what privacy advocates and defenders of Due Process feel is unconstitutional and inappropriate about the DMCA subpoena provision. This gives the RIAA the right to spy on 60 million Americans, even if it never ends up suing a single one of them.

Because subpoenas are ordinarily filed after a lawsuit has begun, valid subpoenas typically are limited to requesting information related to the subject matter of the lawsuit and the parties to the lawsuit. (This was part of the basis for Judge Brazil's finding in the Kozinski case -- that the subpoenas requested information beyond the scope of the lawsuit.) Parties to the lawsuit are also required to give copies of any subpoena they issue to the other parties. Because of the relevance limitation and the requirement to send copies to others, all affected parties in a litigation get notice if their information is being requested from a third party; this allows them to move to quash any subpoena that might invade their privacy. (As was the case in the Kozinski case.)

However, when it comes to the DMCA's pre-emptive subpoenas, there is no lawsuit; therefore, there are no opposing parties that the RIAA is required to send copies of the subpoena to. Thus, the users never find out that their information is being sought and never have a chance to oppose, unless the ISP voluntarily notifies them.

Under current law, it's up to the ISP to notify the customer if they want to. When an ISP is served with one of these RIAA subpoenas, the larger ISPs who have legal counsel, such as Verizon and Pac Bell, would know if the subpoena itself is lawful or not. However, for smaller, "mom and pop" types of ISPs, the subpoenas are often handled by administrative personnel. Often, such ISP won't even consult legal counsel, for doing so every time could result in large legal bills.

With the RIAA issuing DMCA subpoenas at it's current rapid rate (over 1500 in the last two months), and taking into account that such subpoenas require a response within seven days, even a well-staffed legal department could not adequately respond to such a barrage of subpoenas. This is another reason that many feel the RIAA should be forced to file lawsuits that would cost them several hundred dollars a person, rather than be allowed to send out mass subpoena mailings that only cost them less than $50 a piece.

How would a file sharer know that their privacy had been violated in this way? The first thing one would have to do is look up their user name or IP address using The EFF's Subpoena Database Query Tool to see if it shows up in the EFF's subpoena database. Even if it doesn't come up in the database, you could ask your ISP directly if they have been served and whether or not they have complied with it. You could ask them what information they've made available. The ISP is not under any obligation to tell the user if and what they did, but it's a good business practice to do so. It could depend on the ISP's user agreement as well.

Ironically, the DMCA allows the RIAA to subpoena user info pre-suit, but if an ISP refused to tell a user whether or not it had given up their info to the RIAA, the user would have to sue his ISP in order to get that information via discovery.

Computer users are at a significant disadvantage under the DMCA subpoena provision process. If they don't know they've been served, and the ISP just hands over the info and doesn't tell the user, the user can't complain about the subpoena being invalid in time to stop the information transfer, and the damage has been done. And if the ISP doesn't even consult its attorney, it's not going to complain or challenge the validity of the subpoena.

Legislation has been proposed to require ISPs to notify their customers when a third party has subpoenaed their information. The legislation is mostly meant for state defamation suits where someone has anonymously posted something on a message board or in a chat room. Companies will often subpoena the hosting service to discover the identity of the person. The hosting service is not currently under any obligation to notify the person that their identity is being subpoenaed.

The new law proposed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (with assistance from the Samuelson Clinic for Law, Technology, and Public Policy at Boalt Hall), would force ISPs to notify their customers and give 30 days to challenge the requests in court. However, such legislation would not have any affect on the DMCA subpoenas, which take place at the Federal level. However, if the law passes, many would like to see this same requirement in the DMCA subpoena provision. Arguably, something of this nature is constitutionally required on Due Process grounds.

Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) is investigating the techniques and methods used to issue subpoenas and collect information from ISPs, noting that numerous clerks in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia have already had to be reassigned just to deal with the paperwork. He requested copies of all of the subpoenas filed by the RIAA and "a description of the methodology the RIAA is using to secure evidence of potentially illegal file sharing by computer users." According to an interview with Senator Coleman in Future Tense Now Magazine, Coleman's worried about the disproportionate penalties being proposed by the RIAA (at $100,000 per song) for the kinds of copyright infringement that file sharing sometimes involves. "My concern is to make sure that the penalty fits the crime," Coleman said, "And that in the end, we're not wiping out some families' savings because some kid downloaded, for his own use, some songs over the Internet."

The "Clean Slate" Amnesty Program

On Monday, September 8, 2003, the RIAA announced that it has filed lawsuits against 261 people. It also announced its "Clean Slate" Amnesty program on MusicUnited.org.

To participate, sharers would fill out the Clean Slate Affidavit stating that all infringing files have been deleted from their computer and all CDs burned from those files have been destroyed. In addition, confessors would pledge to never do it again with the understanding that the penalties would be even more severe if they were caught, because they could then be charged with "willful infringement."

The affidavits must be notarized, and there must be a separate affidavit for everyone in your household. Sharers under 18 must have the affidavit signed by their parent or guardian. Applicants are also expected to "not allow others to illegally download copyrighted sound recordings to your computer(s)." Only individuals are eligible for the Clean Slate program; businesses, groups, organizations or "entities," or individuals who traded for payment or commercial purposes may not participate.

In the program description, in exchange for filling out and sending in an affidavit, the RIAA will agree "not to support or assist in copyright infringement suits based on past conduct" for users who meet certain conditions. One of these conditions is the RIAA "has not begun to investigate you by requesting from an Internet Service Provider (ISP), by subpoena or otherwise, identifying information about you." If users whose information has already been subpoenaed are not eligible for amnesty, this presents a problem for any users wishing to receive amnesty. Under the DMCA, neither the RIAA or the ISP who has been subpoenaed is required to notify the user upon being served, they could unknowingly admit to conduct the RIAA might already be in the process of suing them for.

A key issue remains that the RIAA does not even have the right to grant full amnesty in the first place. The songwriters and music publishers that aren't represented by the RIAA (such as Metallica) could opt to sue infringers on their own. "The RIAA doesn't have the right to give full amnesty for file sharing. True, they represent 90% of all sound recording copyright owners. But there are still 10 percent out there who could sue you even if you take amnesty program," said Jason Schultz, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's still unclear if amnesty saves you from being sued by the songwriters/music publishers."

Clean Slate's Privacy Policy raises other questions. It states that "information provided on the Clean Slate Program Affidavit will be used solely in connection with conducting and enforcing the Clean Slate Program" and not used for "marketing, promotional, or public relations purposes" and will "not be made public or given to third parties, including individual copyright owners," but then there's a big exception: "except if necessary to enforce a participant's violation of the pledges set forth in the Affidavit or otherwise required by law." This language, translated, means that the affidavit records would in fact be made available to other infringement lawsuits.

"We're calling it a 'Shamnesty.' It's more like a Trojan Horse than a 'clean slate.' It fools you into thinking you're safe, when the reality is that, if anything, you're more at risk for participating," explains Jason Schultz, Staff Attorney for the EFF. "It's not 'Full Amnesty' at all. The agreement doesn't give file sharers any real peace of mind, because it only covers being sued by the RIAA itself -- not any of its member companies. This means that, under the Clean Slate agreement, recording companies, copyright owners, and music publishers can all still sue you. It only means that the RIAA won't 'assist' them in the lawsuit. They are basically getting you to admit to the conduct so your own statement can be used against you later."

This is a news story with a little clip of Jason in the middle.

This is from the September 8, 2003 program.

Jason Schultz On CBS (Small - 7 MB)

By Stefanie Olsen (with contributions from John Borland) for CNET.

Under the RIAA's "Clean Slate" program, file swappers must destroy any copies of copyrighted works they have downloaded from services such as Kazaa and sign a notarized affidavit pledging never to trade copyrighted works online again.

But Ira Rothken, legal counsel for Parke, said after reviewing the RIAA's legal documents that the trade group provides no real amnesty for such file swappers. With the legalese, the trade group does not agree to destroy data or promise to protect users from further suits, Rothken said.

"The legal documents only give one thing to people in return: that the RIAA won't cooperate," Rothken said. "The RIAA's legal document does not even prevent RIAA members from suing."

The suit asks the court to enjoin the RIAA from falsely advertising its program.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://rss.com.com/2100-1027_3-5073972.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news

RIAA sued for amnesty offer

By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
September 10, 2003, 9:04 AM PT

update A day after the Recording Industry Association of America filed a slew of lawsuits against alleged illegal song swappers, it became the target of legal action over its own "amnesty" program.

California resident Eric Parke, on behalf of the general public of the state, filed a suit Tuesday against the trade association because of its amnesty, or "Clean Slate," program, a provisional shield it introduced Monday that allows people to avoid legal action by stepping forward and forfeiting any illegally traded songs. The suit, filed in the Marin Superior Court of California, charges that the RIAA's program is a deceptive and fraudulent business practice.

It is "designed to induce members of the general public...to incriminate themselves and provide the RIAA and others with actionable admissions of wrongdoing under penalty of perjury while (receiving)...no legally binding release of claims...in return," according to the complaint.

"This lawsuit seeks a remedy to stop the RIAA from engaging in unlawful, misleading and fraudulent business practices," the suit reads.

The RIAA responded to the suit with a maxim: "No good deed goes unpunished, apparently."

"It's also unfortunate that a lawyer would try to prevent others from getting the assurances they want that they will not be sued," an RIAA representative wrote in an e-mail.

The complaint is the first legal retaliation to the RIAA's lawsuit campaign against individual file swappers. The trade group filed 261 lawsuits against computer users it said were exclusively "egregious" file swappers, marking the first time copyright laws have been used on a mass scale against individual Net users. The barrage of lawsuits signaled a turning point in the industry's three-year fight against online song-trading services such as Kazaa and the now-defunct Napster and one of the most controversial moments in the recording industry's digital history.

On Tuesday, the RIAA settled its first case with Brianna Lahara, a 12-year-old New York resident. The recording industry agreed to drop its case against the preteen in exchange for $2,000, a sum considerably lower than previous settlement arrangements. Legal actions by the RIAA had been taken on a sporadic basis against operators of pirate servers or sites, but ordinary computer users have never before been at serious risk of liability for widespread behavior.

After long years of avoiding direct conflict with file swappers who might also be music buyers, industry executives said they have lost patience. Monday's lawsuits are just the first wave of what the group said ultimately could be "thousands more" lawsuits filed over the next few months.

Under the RIAA's "Clean Slate" program, file swappers must destroy any copies of copyrighted works they have downloaded from services such as Kazaa and sign a notarized affidavit pledging never to trade copyrighted works online again.

But Ira Rothken, legal counsel for Parke, said after reviewing the RIAA's legal documents that the trade group provides no real amnesty for such file swappers. With the legalese, the trade group does not agree to destroy data or promise to protect users from further suits, Rothken said.

"The legal documents only give one thing to people in return: that the RIAA won't cooperate," Rothken said. "The RIAA's legal document does not even prevent RIAA members from suing."

The suit asks the court to enjoin the RIAA from falsely advertising its program.

CNET News.com's John Borland contributed to this report.

Yesterday, a 12 year-old girl became the first to settle with the RIAA in one of its witch hunt lawsuits. She lives with her mother in public housing, and they were going to end up on the street as a result of settling the suit. This was apparently OK with the RIAA.

File sharers to the rescue! P2P United has now stepped in to pay the fine. How nice. Way to stick together!

File sharers pay 12-year-old's music piracy fine
From AFP.

But "P2P United" has stepped in, offering to pay Brianna's fine.

"We don't condone copyright infringement but it's time for the RIAA's winged monkeys to fly back to the castle and leave the Munchkins alone," the group's executive director, Adam Eisgrau, said.

He says "they're using 150,000 dollar-per-song lawsuits and a squad of high-paid lawyers to strong-arm $2,000 from single mothers in public housing".

Mr Eisgrau says others charged include a 71-year-old grandfather and a Columbia University senior, whose father recently died of cancer.

His group, formed in July to protect the rights of people who file share and the industry, represents Streamcast Networks, Grokster, LimeWire, BearShare, Blubster and EDonkey.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/weekly/newsnat-11sep2003-35.htm

File sharers pay 12-year-old's music piracy fine

A trade group representing six of the biggest file sharing web sites have pledged to pay a $US2,000 fine on behalf of a 12-year-old girl, who illegally downloaded music from the Internet.

Brianna Lahara of New York, or more precisely her mother, was fined as a settlement to a lawsuit by the music industry for illegally copying and offering pirated music on the Internet.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) says the case is the first of 261 lawsuits filed in an effort to clamp down on illegal music-swapping on the Internet.

"We understand now that file-sharing the music was illegal," the girl's mother, Sylvia Torres, said in a statement issued by the RIAA.

"You can be sure Brianna won't be doing it any more."

For her part, Brianna said: "I am sorry for what I have done, I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."

But "P2P United" has stepped in, offering to pay Brianna's fine.

"We don't condone copyright infringement but it's time for the RIAA's winged monkeys to fly back to the castle and leave the Munchkins alone," the group's executive director, Adam Eisgrau, said.

He says "they're using 150,000 dollar-per-song lawsuits and a squad of high-paid lawyers to strong-arm $2,000 from single mothers in public housing".

Mr Eisgrau says others charged include a 71-year-old grandfather and a Columbia University senior, whose father recently died of cancer.

His group, formed in July to protect the rights of people who file share and the industry, represents Streamcast Networks, Grokster, LimeWire, BearShare, Blubster and EDonkey.

The RIAA says the lawsuits, filed on Monday local time, are the first in what could be thousands of suits in a bid to stem rampant online piracy of copyrighted songs.

But the tactic has been criticised by some as a heavy-handed invasion of privacy that could alienate music fans.

It had charged that the computer used by the girl offered more than 1,000 copyrighted song tracks via the KaZaa file-sharing service.

"We're trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences, "RIAA chairman and chief executive Mitch Bainwol said.

"As this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers."

-- AFP

This is a general story about the RIAA's lawsuits and it's recently announced shamnesty program -- there's a little clip of Fred in there.

This program aired on September 8, 2003 on ABC World News Tonight.

Fred von Lohmann On The RIAA's Lawsuits and Shamnesty Program (Small - 5 MB)

This is a general story about the RIAA's lawsuits and it's recently announced shamnesty program -- there's a little clip of Wendy in there.

This program aired on September 8, 2003 on San Francisco's local ABC station.

Wendy Seltzer On The RIAA's Shamnesty Program (Small - 6 MB)

We don't need your stinkin' amnesty!
File sharers scoff at the recording industry's offer of forgiveness for repentant downloaders.
By Farhad Manjoo For Salon.

Lisa Rein, a blogger at On Lisa Rein's Radar

I would not participate in this program under any circumstances.

I don't feel comfortable with the privacy policy -- which has a pretty big exception, that the information would not be divulged, "except if necessary to enforce a participant's violation of the pledges set forth in the Affidavit or otherwise required by law."(Meaning if the RIAA receives a subpoena from another party.)

The RIAA doesn't have the right to give full amnesty anyway -- you could still be sued by the individual copyright owners/song publishers (like Metallica).

So they are collecting a big database of individuals that can be turned over to other individuals who will then sue the file-sharers anyway. And the file-sharers will have admitted to it, thinking they were getting amnesty. Forget it!

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/09/09/filesharing_amnesty/print.html

We don't need your stinkin' amnesty!
File sharers scoff at the recording industry's offer of forgiveness for repentant downloaders.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Farhad Manjoo

Sept. 9, 2003 | On Monday morning, the Recording Industry Association of America, (RIAA) the music industry's main trade group, announced that it had filed lawsuits against 261 people in the United States for allegedly violating copyright laws by using online file-sharing programs such as Kazaa.

The move did not come as a surprise; for months, the industry had been warning that it would go after individuals it suspects of trading songs online. But because the people being sued could theoretically face fines of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars, these lawsuits can't be good for the RIAA's already tarnished image. (Under U.S. copyright law, the RIAA can ask as for as much as $150,000 for each copyright violation.)

Perhaps to show that it wasn't the big bully file-sharers claim it is, the RIAA also introduced an "amnesty" program for people who have not yet been sued. Under the program, called "Clean Slate," file-traders can send the RIAA a notarized declaration that they will delete all stolen files from their hard drives, and that they will never again trade MP3s. If you agree to live a life free of Kazaa, the RIAA will not sue you; but if you happen to fall off the wagon, you better watch out.

After the RIAA's announcement, Salon surveyed the Web for reactions to Clean Slate. We e-mailed bloggers, Usenet users, people on P2P discussion sites and others who've been known to get a song for free every once in a while. Not a single person was willing to sign on the RIAA's amnesty program. Here are their reasons:

Eric Olsen, a blogger who runs Blogcritics.org

I would not sign it for several reasons: the behavior in question has not been clearly identified as legal or illegal. Of the four factors the Copyright Act lists that must be weighed in determining fair use -- 1) the purpose of the copying, including whether it is commercial or educational; 2) the nature of the work; 3) the amount of the work that is copied; 4) the effect of the copying on the market for the work -- 1 and 4 are very much up in the air regarding music file sharing.

I object to the RIAA scorched-earth legal campaign on virtually every level, and would see seeking amnesty as moral and legal capitulation and tacit acceptance of its legitimacy. File sharers aren't "pirates" or "thieves": pirates make illegal copies of copyrighted works and sell them on the black market. File sharers make no profit. Nor is it "stealing" in the sense that any property has been taken: it is still a very open question whether in fact file sharing may actually increase legitimate sales via exposure and experimentation.

It would be foolish to put myself on record as having committed a perceived offense with the very organization that most wants to maximize that action as an offense, and to commit myself to never again committing an act that may or may not end up being at least partially legal, or legal in a mutated form.

Lastly, without questioning the integrity and good intentions of the RIAA, the track record of database security is such that I wouldn't trust that kind of sensitive information about myself with any organization.

A 26-year-old tech professional in San Francisco who uses Kazaa, speaking to Salon by phone

It's 261 lawsuits out of several million file-traders in this country. To be honest I don't think that the RIAA is going to spend the time and money that it takes to crack down on these cases, and considering the frequency with which I use these services, the chances of any prosecution coming against me are pretty slim. And I think that signing an affidavit is only going to alert the authorities that I might be trying to evade to my intentions and my identity. ... I think it's [being sued] is real threat, just as being hit by a car is a real threat -- but I don't think it's very likely that they will sue me. If anything, the threat of a lawsuit would drive me to severely limit my use if these file-sharing services. But I would never throw away the little bit of anonymity I enjoy on the Internet [by signing an amnesty program].

Moonman, a member of Zeropaid.com, a P2P discussion site

Would I ever sign this? Never. Think about it for a moment, would it be good to have a written document saying that you have done illegal things in the past in their hands as well as a photo? I don't think so. These are just scare tactics. They are hoping people like college kids will use this as a sort of "get out of jail free card," when in reality they are only admitting they have done wrong.

A file-trader who talks about music on Usenet

Personally, I would not sign this amnesty letter. The RIAA is not a government entity; therefore, they are not authorized to give amnesty to anybody who has a case with the potential of criminal liability. This amnesty letter is more of a P.R. move than anything else. They look bad for suing some people; this makes them look like they actually care. Don't call it amnesty, it should be called a signed admission of guilt. This amnesty contract does not get you off the hook if you share, and people that have already been subpoenaed do not qualify. So tell me, what is the point?

Aqlo, another Zeropaid user

Reasons not to consider the Amnesty offer:

a) It makes your identity known where it might otherwise not have been, or might have been insignificant until you spoke up.

b) Having done so it fails to protect you from any criminal action (RIAA actions are civil, they have no control over real prosecutors).

c) It also fails to protect you from civil actions by any other body (such as the MPAA).

d) It greatly hurts the cases of any current defendants. If a multitude of people sign this document they each serve as witnesses for the idea that sharing is a crime, something that has not yet been adjudicated.

e) It encourages further harassment along these lines at a time when many questions are up in the air.

f) It does not apply to anyone who has already been subpoenaed.

g) It constitutes a waiver of many rights to which you might otherwise be entitled.

Under no circumstances whatsoever would I sign such an onerous document, there is no advantage in doing so which can outweigh the overwhelming disadvantages.

Lisa Rein, a blogger at On Lisa Rein's Radar

I would not participate in this program under any circumstances.

I don't feel comfortable with the privacy policy -- which has a pretty big exception, that the information would not be divulged, "except if necessary to enforce a participant's violation of the pledges set forth in the Affidavit or otherwise required by law."(Meaning if the RIAA receives a subpoena from another party.)

The RIAA doesn't have the right to give full amnesty anyway -- you could still be sued by the individual copyright owners/song publishers (like Metallica).

So they are collecting a big database of individuals that can be turned over to other individuals who will then sue the file-sharers anyway. And the file-sharers will have admitted to it, thinking they were getting amnesty. Forget it!

Mary Hodder, one of the bloggers at the Berkeley Intellectual Property Weblog, or bIPlog

I would not sign the amnesty, because I do not file-share (up or downloading copyright protected materials -- (I) used to pre-Napster decision, but not now), and because the RIAA does not represent all the parties potentially involved, and therefore admitting to the RIAA that you file-share is asking for more trouble. They say you can "wipe the slate clean" in their press release today, but that would only be their slate, nobody else's.

I would not sign because who knows what they would do with the photos and personal information they will collect. They are not a law enforcement agency, and as such, are not subject to public oversight. They are a private trade group, and have way too much power under the DMCA to subvert people's rights, without judicial oversight, as it is (the subpoenas are generated by bots and sent out without a judge or clerk checking them out, and they've been wrong in some cases, and may be or have already been wrong in more...)

I do think this program will push more people to DarkNet solutions, and will cause the two extremes (RIAA vs. people who hate them and don't care about copyright) to grow further apart, making it harder to get to reasonable solutions, that don't criminalize millions, like compulsory licensing or good, well made Web downloading services with reasonable prices and a great catalog.

Not to mention that subtle, nuanced concepts like fair use and the public domain get totally shot. As well as any perspective on the DMCA and why some things in there aren't quite right. The RIAA is just shouting loudest right now. It's kind of a guerilla war they will never win. Like Vietnam.

Joseph Lorenzo Hall, a graduate student at the School of Information Management and Systems at UC Berkeley

It reminds me a lot of what SCO is doing right now in their case against IBM and their quest to destroy Linux. That is, they are attempting to force upon people the belief that what they're doing is wrong through legal maneuvers and indemnity ploys. In the RIAA's case, file-trading of MP3s and in SCO's case, running the Linux kernel. I would not sign it as that would mean that I'm admitting that sharing music with the world is illegal... I happen to believe that sharing music with my friends (or even potential friends) is well within the bounds of fair use. This is all very similar to software "piracy"... that is people are "trying to protect their intellectual property" when they should be thinking about value-added services or non-digital materials that people would flock to purchase....

I just wonder what all the resources that the RIAA is throwing at this from a legal perspective could do if they were funneled to discovery of new talent or new distribution channels. They don't seem to understand that trading of their files "is a GOOD thing (R)". Exposure is half the battle... especially for the majority of little bands out there... Sure, the big manufactured talent gigs will suffer. But that's flawed design...

Protecting privacy from the 'new spam'
By Peter Swire for the Boston Globe.

Overlooked in the heated rhetoric has been a victim of the RIAA's campaign - the privacy of all those who surf the Internet or send e-mail. On the RIAA view, your sensitive personal information on the Web would be available to anyone who can fill out a one-page form. Congress can and should step in to fix this problem immediately.

The problem began in late 2002, when the RIAA demanded that Verizon Online, an Internet service provider, identify one of its customers based on an accusation that the person may have violated copyright laws by swapping files.

Verizon declined, citing the threats to customer privacy, due process, and the First Amendment. Was Verizon overreacting? No.

The new process starts when any website operator, recipient of an e-mail, or participant in a P2P network learns the Internet Protocol address of the home user. These IP addresses are automatically communicated by the nature of the Net, but until now only the ISP could usually match an IP address with a user's identity.

When a copyright holder fills out a one-page form, however, a federal court clerk must now immediately issue a subpoena. That subpoena orders the ISP to turn over the name, home address, and phone number that matches the IP address.

This procedure violates due process. There is no judicial oversight and only the flimsiest showing of cause. Furthermore, Internet service providers risk large penalties if they even question the validity of a subpoena.

Privacy is destroyed because it becomes so easy to reveal the identity of Internet users. The First Amendment is undermined because of the chilling effect if every e-mail and every post to a Web page can be quickly tracked back to a home address and phone number.
The early use of these subpoenas has shown startling mistakes by copyright holders. One recording industry subpoena this spring - based on a patently incorrect allegation - nearly closed down a college astronomy department's Web server in the middle of exam week. A major studio has sought a subpoena based on the careless assertion that a tiny computer file was a copy of a Harry Potter movie. (It was a child's book report instead.)

An even greater risk is putting this subpoena power in the hands of anyone willing to pretend to have a copyright claim. These fraudulent requests will be impossible to distinguish from legitimate ones.

This flood of legally sanctioned harassment will quickly become the ''new spam,'' with the kinds of abuses as limitless as the Internet itself:

The most common use may be that of website operators who want to identify their visitors for marketing purposes or for more nefarious reasons, including identity theft, fraud, or stalking.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/208/oped/Protecting_privacy_from_the_new_spam_+.shtml

Protecting privacy from the 'new spam'
By Peter Swire, 7/27/2003

THE BATTLE is heating up between the recording industry and those who download copies of their favorite music. the Recording Industry Association of America is bringing hundreds of lawsuits nationwide against home users of peer-to-peer (P2P) software, including students at Boston College and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah recently used a Senate hearing to suggest that copyright owners should be able to warn home users once or twice, and then actually destroy the computers if the apparently infringing songs were not removed.

Overlooked in the heated rhetoric has been a victim of the RIAA's campaign - the privacy of all those who surf the Internet or send e-mail. On the RIAA view, your sensitive personal information on the Web would be available to anyone who can fill out a one-page form. Congress can and should step in to fix this problem immediately.

The problem began in late 2002, when the RIAA demanded that Verizon Online, an Internet service provider, identify one of its customers based on an accusation that the person may have violated copyright laws by swapping files.

Verizon declined, citing the threats to customer privacy, due process, and the First Amendment. Was Verizon overreacting? No.

The new process starts when any website operator, recipient of an e-mail, or participant in a P2P network learns the Internet Protocol address of the home user. These IP addresses are automatically communicated by the nature of the Net, but until now only the ISP could usually match an IP address with a user's identity.

When a copyright holder fills out a one-page form, however, a federal court clerk must now immediately issue a subpoena. That subpoena orders the ISP to turn over the name, home address, and phone number that matches the IP address.

This procedure violates due process. There is no judicial oversight and only the flimsiest showing of cause. Furthermore, Internet service providers risk large penalties if they even question the validity of a subpoena.

Privacy is destroyed because it becomes so easy to reveal the identity of Internet users. The First Amendment is undermined because of the chilling effect if every e-mail and every post to a Web page can be quickly tracked back to a home address and phone number.
The early use of these subpoenas has shown startling mistakes by copyright holders. One recording industry subpoena this spring - based on a patently incorrect allegation - nearly closed down a college astronomy department's Web server in the middle of exam week. A major studio has sought a subpoena based on the careless assertion that a tiny computer file was a copy of a Harry Potter movie. (It was a child's book report instead.)

An even greater risk is putting this subpoena power in the hands of anyone willing to pretend to have a copyright claim. These fraudulent requests will be impossible to distinguish from legitimate ones.

This flood of legally sanctioned harassment will quickly become the ''new spam,'' with the kinds of abuses as limitless as the Internet itself:

The most common use may be that of website operators who want to identify their visitors for marketing purposes or for more nefarious reasons, including identity theft, fraud, or stalking.

Porn sites and gambling sites could track down visitors and demand payment not to reveal the user's identity, all under the pretext of enforcing the site's ''copyright.''

Private investigators will gain an unstoppable way to turn an e-mail address into a person's name and physical address.

Fortunately, a better alternative is clear. Courts have already used ''John Doe'' procedures where one party tries to learn the name of an anonymous Internet user. In these cases, users can object (anonymously) to having their identity revealed. The judge looks at the facts. If the person is engaged in illegal piracy, then the judge reveals the name and orders effective sanctions. If the copyright holder or scam artist does not have a winning case, then the user names remain private.

John Doe legislation of this sort is being considered now in California and should become a priority in Congress as well. The RIAA lawsuits against users are beginning now, long before the appeal of the Verizon proceeding will be decided.

Before the ''new spam'' proliferates, we should have fair procedures in place that will protect intellectual property while protecting privacy, free speech, and due process as well.

Peter Swire is professor at the Moritz College of Law of the Ohio State University, and was the Clinton Administration's chief privacy counselor.

This story ran on page E11 of the Boston Globe on 7/27/2003

Here's
Ben Affleck on Tech TV talking about filesharing. (Windows Media File - .asf)

(Thanks, Jason.)

This is from the August 23, 2003 program of "Bay Area People" on KTVU Channel 2 in San Francisco.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Jason Schultz explains why the RIAA's Subpoena process raises several red flags in the areas of privacy and due process in terms of one's rights being violated before it's been proven that they've even broken the law).

Jason also explains the EFF's How Not To Get Sued and Subpoena Database Query Tool websites and how consumers can use them to protect themselves against this travesty of justice.

Jason Schultz On The RIAA Subpoenas (Small - 19 MB)

File swapper fights RIAA subpoena
By John Borland for CNET News.com

An anonymous California computer user went to court Thursday to challenge the recording industry's file-trading subpoenas, charging that they are unconstitutional and violate her right to privacy.
The legal motion, filed in Washington, D.C., federal court by a "Jane Doe" Internet service subscriber, is the first from an individual whose personal information has been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in recent months...

The motion was filed by a pair of Sacramento, Calif., attorneys, who said the RIAA had gone too far in its effort to protect its online copyrights.

"This is more invasive than someone having secret access to the library books you check out or the videos you rent," said Glenn Peterson, one of the attorneys, in a statement. "The recent efforts of the music industry to root out piracy have addressed a uniquely contemporary problem with Draconian methods--good old fashioned intimidation combined with access to personal information that would make George Orwell blush."

The "Jane Doe" motion comes as the first individual legal response to the RIAA's effort to sue large numbers of file swappers. It follows similar legal challenges from several ISPs and colleges, including Pacific Bell Internet Services, an SBC Communications subsidiary...

Critics of the unconventional subpoena process have noted that individuals whose information has been sought in other subpoena processes, such as potential libel cases, are given the legal opportunity to challenge the request for their personal information, however.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1025_3-5066754.html

File swapper fights RIAA subpoena
John Borland, Staff Writer, CNET News.com

An anonymous California computer user went to court Thursday to challenge the recording industry's file-trading subpoenas, charging that they are unconstitutional and violate her right to privacy.
The legal motion, filed in Washington, D.C., federal court by a "Jane Doe" Internet service subscriber, is the first from an individual whose personal information has been subpoenaed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in recent months.

The RIAA has used court orders to try to identify more than 1,000 computer users it alleges have been offering copyrighted songs on file-trading networks. It plans to use the information gained to file copyright lawsuits against the individuals.

The motion was filed by a pair of Sacramento, Calif., attorneys, who said the RIAA had gone too far in its effort to protect its online copyrights.

"This is more invasive than someone having secret access to the library books you check out or the videos you rent," said Glenn Peterson, one of the attorneys, in a statement. "The recent efforts of the music industry to root out piracy have addressed a uniquely contemporary problem with Draconian methods--good old fashioned intimidation combined with access to personal information that would make George Orwell blush."

The "Jane Doe" motion comes as the first individual legal response to the RIAA's effort to sue large numbers of file swappers. It follows similar legal challenges from several ISPs and colleges, including Pacific Bell Internet Services, an SBC Communications subsidiary.

A Massachusetts federal court has already ruled that some of the group's subpoenas, submitted to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston College, had not followed the correct legal process and were therefore invalid. That court left open the possibility that the RIAA could simply refile those subpoenas properly, however.

An RIAA spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment on Thursday's legal action. Previously, attorneys for the group have noted that the subpoenas are aimed at the ISPs that hold subscriber information, not subscribers themselves, and therefore individuals had little or no legal standing to challenge them.

Critics of the unconventional subpoena process have noted that individuals whose information has been sought in other subpoena processes, such as potential libel cases, are given the legal opportunity to challenge the request for their personal information, however.

RIAA Subpoenas and the Final Failure of the DMCA
By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
(via techlawadvisor.com)

The original intent of Congress was to prevent ISPs and other Internet services from having to police their users’ content for copyright infringement, and in theory it seemed a reasonable way to protect copyright holders while not unduly burdening fledgling Internet businesses.

In practice, of course, it’s turned out to be anything but reasonable. DMCA “takedowns” based on flimsy or totally bogus claims of copyright infringement are a daily occurrence. And not just because of the RIAA, since movie studios, game console manufacturers, pornographers and spammers have also learned what a powerful tool the DMCA can be in the hands of those with a little knowledge of the law and no scruples. Small ISPs and web hosting services often find the need to respond to DMCA takedown orders an enormous burden, particularly if they have any sense of responsibility for their users.

All the RIAA has done with its out-of-control legal attack is to take the DMCA takedown process to its logical but absurd conclusion. Now even the biggest broadband suppliers like SBC and Verizon are saying they can’t be saddled with the substantial costs involved in responding to all the subpoenas they’re receiving from RIAA. And, as a recent lawsuit filed by SBC-subsidiary PacBell against the RIAA and several adult entertainment operations makes clear, it's not just the recording industry that can use these subpoena tactics to the detriment of ISPs and their users. After all, copyright holders come in all manner of life forms, including some very low ones.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2003/8/17/193749/599

RIAA Subpoenas and the Final Failure of the DMCA

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Sun Aug 17th, 2003 at 07:37:49 PM PDT

I think one point about the RIAA’s (Recording Industry Association of America) attempt to sue everyone in sight needs to be emphasized. In filing thousands of subpoenas trying to force ISPs to identify customers who may have pirated music, the RIAA has demonstrated beyond one thing: the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) has absolutely and completely failed in its purpose.

While it’s generally recognized that the DMCA is badly flawed, most of the negative commentary has focused on the law’s ban on circumventing copyright protection systems and the resulting abuses of fair use principles. But there was a second major section (Section. 512) that the DMCA added to the Copyright Act called “Limitations on liability relating to material online.” DMCA defenders have often cited that section as being the section of the law that works, an assertion that has now been proven false by the RIAA.

Section 512 basically says that online service providers will not be held liable for copyright infringement by their users as long as they respond “expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing …” when notified a copyright holder. The original intent of Congress was to prevent ISPs and other Internet services from having to police their users’ content for copyright infringement, and in theory it seemed a reasonable way to protect copyright holders while not unduly burdening fledgling Internet businesses.

In practice, of course, it’s turned out to be anything but reasonable. DMCA “takedowns” based on flimsy or totally bogus claims of copyright infringement are a daily occurrence. And not just because of the RIAA, since movie studios, game console manufacturers, pornographers and spammers have also learned what a powerful tool the DMCA can be in the hands of those with a little knowledge of the law and no scruples. Small ISPs and web hosting services often find the need to respond to DMCA takedown orders an enormous burden, particularly if they have any sense of responsibility for their users.

All the RIAA has done with its out-of-control legal attack is to take the DMCA takedown process to its logical but absurd conclusion. Now even the biggest broadband suppliers like SBC and Verizon are saying they can’t be saddled with the substantial costs involved in responding to all the subpoenas they’re receiving from RIAA. And, as a recent lawsuit filed by SBC-subsidiary PacBell against the RIAA and several adult entertainment operations makes clear, it's not just the recording industry that can use these subpoena tactics to the detriment of ISPs and their users. After all, copyright holders come in all manner of life forms, including some very low ones.

Ultimately, we will probably owe the RIAA a debt of thanks for what it’s done here. DMCA or no DMCA, it’s clear the RIAA legal strategy will itself ultimately fail to thwart peer-to-peer technology. But in forcing ISPs to take sides against them -- not to mention millions of Americans who must worry if they or their children are one of the subpoena targets -- the RIAA is actually helping highlight the DMCA’s failure. Even Congress must soon come to understand had badly its purposes have been perverted by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and those who make use of it.

Senator to hold hearings on recording industry's piracy crackdown
By Frederic Frommer for the Associated Press.

A Senate panel will hold hearings on the recording industry's crackdown against online music swappers, the chairman said Thursday.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., made the announcement in a letter to the Recording Industry Association of America. He had received information he had requested from the group about the campaign, which Coleman has called excessive...

The association announced plans in June to file several hundred lawsuits against people suspected of illegally sharing songs on the Internet. Copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song...

Coleman said he is concerned the campaign could ensnare innocent people, such as parents and grandparents whose computers are being used to download music by their children and grandchildren. He also said that some downloaders themselves might not know they are breaking the law.

Coleman has admitted that he used to download music from Napster, the file-sharing service that a federal judge shut down for violating music copyrights.

He wrote that as subcommittee chairman, he intends "to assist in the development of remedies that will be reasonable and narrowly tailored to fit the extent of infringement."

...Last month, Coleman asked the industry association to furnish him with a list of its subpoenas; its safeguards against invading privacy and making erroneous subpoenas; its standards for issuing subpoenas; and a description of how it collects evidence of illegal file sharing.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2003/08/15/hearings/

Senator to hold hearings on recording industry's piracy crackdown

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Frederic Frommer

Aug. 15, 2003 |

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Senate panel will hold hearings on the recording industry's crackdown against online music swappers, the chairman said Thursday.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., made the announcement in a letter to the Recording Industry Association of America. He had received information he had requested from the group about the campaign, which Coleman has called excessive.

The Senate Governmental Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is reviewing the group's responses and declined to make them available Thursday, as did the industry group.

The association announced plans in June to file several hundred lawsuits against people suspected of illegally sharing songs on the Internet. Copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song.

In his letter, Coleman said he would look at not just the scope of that campaign but also the dangers that downloaders face by making their personal information available to others. Coleman said he would review legislation that would expand criminal penalties for downloading music.

The association said in a statement that "hearings are part of any oversight process and we always look forward to having the opportunity to present our position."

Coleman said he is concerned the campaign could ensnare innocent people, such as parents and grandparents whose computers are being used to download music by their children and grandchildren. He also said that some downloaders themselves might not know they are breaking the law.

Coleman has admitted that he used to download music from Napster, the file-sharing service that a federal judge shut down for violating music copyrights.

He wrote that as subcommittee chairman, he intends "to assist in the development of remedies that will be reasonable and narrowly tailored to fit the extent of infringement."

Coleman was on vacation Thursday and unavailable for comment.

Last month, Coleman asked the industry association to furnish him with a list of its subpoenas; its safeguards against invading privacy and making erroneous subpoenas; its standards for issuing subpoenas; and a description of how it collects evidence of illegal file sharing.

Wendy vs. Howard Berman on CNN's Next@CNN, August 9, 2003.

Next@CNN - Criminal Intent - Complete (Small - 21 MB)

Next@CNN - Criminal Intent - Part 1 of 2 (Small - 10 MB)

Next@CNN - Criminal Intent - Part 2 of 2 (Small - 11 MB)

Judge rejects subpoenas in music-use case
By Bipasha Ray for the Associated Press.

A federal judge rejected an attempt by the recording industry to uncover the names of Boston College and MIT students suspected of online music piracy.

U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro said Friday that under federal rules, the subpoenas, which were issued in Washington, cannot be served in Massachusetts.

The two schools filed motions last month asking the judge to quash the subpoenas, which request names and other information for one Massachusetts Institute of Technology student and three BC students who allegedly obtained music using various screen names.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://business.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2003/08/08/judge_rejects_subpoenas_in_music_use_case?mode=PF

Judge rejects subpoenas in music-use case

By BIPASHA RAY, Associated Press Writer, 8/8/2003

BOSTON -- A federal judge rejected an attempt by the recording industry to uncover the names of Boston College and MIT students suspected of online music piracy.

U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro said Friday that under federal rules, the subpoenas, which were issued in Washington, cannot be served in Massachusetts.

The two schools filed motions last month asking the judge to quash the subpoenas, which request names and other information for one Massachusetts Institute of Technology student and three BC students who allegedly obtained music using various screen names.

The Washington-based Recording Industry Association of America issued a statement calling the ruling a "minor procedural issue."

The ruling "does not change an undeniable fact -- when individuals distribute music illegally online, they are not anonymous and service providers must reveal who they are," the RIAA said.

Industry spokesman Jonathan Lamy declined to say whether the RIAA was planning to refile in Boston.

Phone messages seeking comment from BC, MIT and the schools' attorney, Jeffrey Swope, were not immediately returned Friday evening.

The subpoenas are part of the RIAA's nationwide effort to crack down on copyright violators using music sharing software online to distribute songs.

This spring, a federal judge affirmed the constitutionality of a law allowing music companies to force Internet providers to release the names of suspected music pirates upon subpoena from any federal court clerk's office. The ruling has been appealed.

Show: KQED Forum
Title: The Great Download Debate
Time: 10 am
Date: July 30, 2003

Guests include the EFF's Jason Schultz, Mitch Glazier of the RIAA, Alex French, Minority Council on the House Judiciary Committee, and Joseph Menn of the LA Times and author of All The Rave.

I've made it available as a single file or in three parts.

I've made aiffs of everything available in the directory too.

KQED Forum On P2P - Complete (MP3 - 73 MB)

KQED Forum On P2P - Part 1 of 3 (MP3 - 26 MB)

KQED Forum On P2P - Part 2 of 3 (MP3 - 26 MB)

KQED Forum On P2P - Part 3 of 3 (MP3 - 23 MB)

Stop or I'll sue
Here's why the record industry is now more powerful than police.
By Dave Ralis for phillyBurbs.com

Under the fourth amendment to Constitution, police must show probable cause that a crime has been committed before they can get a judge's permission to search your home for evidence, or subpoena you to appear in court.

But under the federal Digital Millenium Copyright Act, all the RIAA has to do is file paperwork with a court clerk to get a subpoena if it suspects you of downloading a song from the Internet or sharing music in a peer-to-peer network such as Kazaa, WinMX or Grokster.

Anyone found in violation of the act could faces a lawsuit from the RIAA seeking $750 to $150,000 per song, The Associated Press has reported.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/211-08042003-135854.html

Stop or I'll sue
Here's why the record industry is now more powerful than police.
By Dave Ralis
phillyBurbs.com

RIAA TOP BRASS

According to tax records obtained by phillyBurbs.com, there are only two paid officers on the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) payroll. They are:

• Hillary Rosen, CEO and president, who was paid $1,282,599.
• Cary Sherman, general counsel, who was paid $764,184.
• An unspecified number of other RIAA employees were paid a total of $12.7 million.

Rosen was politically active, donating $14,500 to Democratic campaigns and causes. That includes $10,000 in "soft money" she gave to the Democratic National Commmittee.

Sherman gave $22,500, including $10,000 to RIAA's political action committee.

On Thursday, the RIAA announced that Mitch Brainwol, former Chief of Staff to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and a previous executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, would succeed Rosen as CEO on Sept. 1.

I used to think music was about freedom. Especially Rock 'n roll.

Not anymore.

Now you can be fined up to $150,000 for sharing a single song with a friend or a stranger. Record companies and politicians have seen to it.

And in a strange twist of fate, the American Civil Liberties Union has joined forces with the largest baby Bell, Verizon, in an effort to prevent the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from gaining more legal power than your local police.

Under the fourth amendment to Constitution, police must show probable cause that a crime has been committed before they can get a judge's permission to search your home for evidence, or subpoena you to appear in court.

But under the federal Digital Millenium Copyright Act, all the RIAA has to do is file paperwork with a court clerk to get a subpoena if it suspects you of downloading a song from the Internet or sharing music in a peer-to-peer network such as Kazaa, WinMX or Grokster.

Anyone found in violation of the act could faces a lawsuit from the RIAA seeking $750 to $150,000 per song, The Associated Press has reported.

On June 26, the association began "gathering evidence and preparing lawsuits against individual computer users who are illegally offering to 'share' substantial amounts of copyrighted music over peer-to-peer networks," according to a press release on its Web site.

So just what does the RIAA mean by "substantial"?

"We are not putting a number on what substantial is," said Amy Weiss, senior vice president of communications. "If you're sharing one copyrighted file that's one too many.

"... (Music) sales are down 26 percent in recent years, due in large part to piracy," Weiss said. "We've laid off thousands and thousands of people over the years. The industry is suffering. It's time we had to act. Department stores prosecute shoplifters. This is no different than walking into a record store and stealing a CD."

So far, the RIAA has asked for 850 subpoenas in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., including one against a Verizon online user who allegedly downloaded 600 songs in a day and made them available to others via the Internet.

RIAA's subpoena asks Verizon to identify that anonymous user. Verizon countered that it wasn't responsible for what its users did. The ACLU jumped to the phone company's aid, arguing, "there should be judicial process. You should have to allege facts that there's a least some semblance of a case there," said Christopher A. Hansen, an ACLU senior staff counsel active in the case.

"Federal law says anyone who claims a copyright infringement can file and the court clerk is required to issue a subpoena," Hansen said. "No judge ever sees it and you are not notified that they are seeking information nor are you given a chance to contest it. It's a totally mechanical device."

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates found the RIAA was within its rights under the copyright act to seek the subpoena and ordered Verizon to turn over the name. Verizon has complied, but it and the ACLU are appealing Bates' decision. The appeal is expected to be heard in the next three months, Hansen said.

MONEY + LOBBYING = POWER

How did we get to this point?

Think of the RIAA as the nation's largest trade group for record producers and manufacturers. They pay $44 million in dues annually to belong to it, according to tax records.

And because the RIAA's mission is to "work for the benefit of the sound music recording industry," the RIAA has been granted not-for-profit status by the Internal Revenue Service. That means it doesn't have to pay taxes on any of that money.

It also means the association's annual tax return is a matter of public record, and phillyBurbs.com was able to obtain a copy of its most recent filing under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

The RIAA's 2001 tax return, which cover its activities from April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002, shows:

* While the association made $721,000 by handing out gold and platinum albums to top selling recording artists, it made $9.5 million by prosecuting music pirates and recovering lost profits.

All of that $9.5 million was handed over to the record labels affected by the pirates, according to Deborah Moore, the RIAA's controller.

"We're pursuing the rights of the labels, not the artists," Moore said. "They (the artists) are paid based on what their deal with the company is."

* The exact amount it cost the RIAA to recover that money was left blank and Weiss did not respond to questions about it. Moore said federal tax rules did not require that much detail because donations to the RIAA are not tax deductible.

However, the tax return says RIAA paid $2.7 million to IFPI, an international antipiracy group; $1.2 million for "investigative support," $546,000 for "evidence collection/storage," $539,000 for "online monitoring," $61,000 for the "Secure Digital Music Initiative" and $47,000 for "antipiracy projects."

* The association's biggest single expense, by far, was for legal fees - $16.7 million.

* The association also spent $1.7 million for "governmental relations projects," $1.3 million in "federal legislative support," and $480,000 in "state legislative support."

The association also has a separate political action committee (PAC), which doled out more than $630,000 to federal candidates last year, federal election records show. The PAC also pumped another $535,000 of "soft money" into the coffers of the Republican and Democratic parties, up from $392,000 it gave to both parties in 2001.

With all that money came influence over the copyright act and the political will to enforce it.

WHO'S FLYING JOLLY ROGER?

Just as the English used Capt. Henry Morgan to clear the Spanish Main of Buccaneers, the RIAA is using the new law to go after what it calls pirates.

Just who the pirates are is unclear.

According to Weiss, the RIAA is only interested in pursuing "the egregious uploaders first, not downloaders, people who are sharing music."

However, she quickly added, "that doesn't preclude anything in the future. ... This is a very long-term campaign. We're not expect traffic to turn off over night."

It is legal for consumers to copy a CD they already own for use in their car. But once they post its songs on the Internet or make them available for someone else to download, they cross the line, Weiss said. "You're offering up a song for millions of users to take. That's a big difference."

Not even the ACLU has challenged that.

"There's a role for copyright and we understand the RIAA's need to enforce it," Hansen said. "But I certainly have problems with the way that they are trying to uncover internet identities."

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Besides standing on the sidelines and rooting for Verizon to win this legal fight, here are my suggestions on what you can do:

* The Internet has largely supplanted radio as the primary means to listen to new music, in no small part due to the recording industry's continued manipulation of station playlists with an estimated $100 million in annual payola.

Weiss insists that the RIAA is "against pay for play. You shouldn't have to pay to have a song," but declined comment when asked if it had any power to enforce that position with its members.

The practice of paying radio stations to play songs in heavy rotation was supposed to have been killed off in the '50s and '60, but has continued using middlemen. That not only marks a violation of the spirit of the Federal Communications Act (punishable by a fine of at least $10,000 and a prison sentence of up to a year for each instance) but could also be construed as a criminal conspiracy (up to five years in prison) and possibly even racketeering ($25,000 fine and 20 years each instance), given its long-term nature.

I suggest that anyone who even suspects a radio station has been paid off to play some crappy song just to boost record sales, without the DJ spelling out the arrangement, should file a complaint with the FCC immediately. (The FCC wants you to do its job by providing a tape of the broadcast and written proof of payola. But if inundated with similar complaints, the FCC will be forced to act. Just ask Howard Stern.) For the mailing address, click here.

* Challenge the RIAA's not-for-profit (501(c)6) status with the IRS. Anyone who is effected by an institution, in this case anybody who has ever bought a CD, can argue that the association has moved beyond its tax-exempt mission. To find out how, click here.

* Anyone who receives a subpoena or a lawsuit from the RIAA should appeal. Your online identity should be protected from interception and subpoenas just like phone conversations. It should not be fair game for a record company executive to exploit.

RIAA PAC 2002 soft money contributions
Contributor Occupation Date Amount Recipient
ALLMAN, KIMBERLY
WASHINGTON, DC 3/15/2001 $240 Republican National Cmte
ALLMAN, KIMBERLY
WASHINGTON, DC 3/15/2001 $290 Republican National Cmte
FLATOW, JOEL
BURBANK, CA 1/31/2001 $2,015 Republican National Cmte
FLATOW, JOEL
BURBANK, CA 1/31/2001 $2,015 Republican National Cmte
RECODING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, DC 1/25/2001 $5,000 Republican National Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASS'N OF AMER
WASHINGTON, DC 10/17/2002 $25,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASS'N OF AMER I
WASHINGTON, DC 11/4/2002 $400 National Republican Senatorial Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASS'N OF AMERI
WASHINGTON, DC 12/28/2001 $20,000 National Republican Senatorial Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASS'N OF AMERIC
WASHINGTON, DC 10/16/2002 $25,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASS'N OF AMERIC
WASHINGTON, DC 1/7/2002 $20,000 National Republican Senatorial Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSN OF AMER
WASHINGTON, DC 11/4/2002 $25,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSN OF AMERICA
WASHINGTON, DC 12/31/2001 $20,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSN OF AMERICA
WASHINGTON, DC 12/31/2001 $20,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERIC
WASHINGTON, DC 6/29/2001 $25,000 2001 President's Dinner Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, DC 8/21/2001 $10,000 Republican National Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, DC 5/11/2001 $10,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, DC 5/9/2002 $5,000 Republican National Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, DC 7/25/2001 $5,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, DC 6/6/2001 $25,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC 5/30/2002 $15,000 National Republican Senatorial Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC 5/30/2002 $15,000 National Republican Senatorial Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC N/A 10/17/2002 $15,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC 7/12/2001 $10,000 National Republican Senatorial Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC INFO REQUESTED 11/5/2002 $10,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC INFO REQUESTED 9/13/2002 $10,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC 6/22/2001 $10,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC N/A 12/31/2001 $10,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC N/A 10/25/2002 $10,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC 6/21/2002 $4,500 National Republican Congressional Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC INFO REQUESTED 8/9/2002 $5,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC 6/13/2002 $5,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC 6/13/2002 $5,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC 11/1/2002 $5,000 Democratic National Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC INFO REQUESTED 11/1/2002 $25,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC N/A 5/21/2002 $25,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC 6/13/2002 $20,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC 5/30/2002 $20,000 National Republican Senatorial Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC INFO REQUESTED 9/25/2002 $20,000 National Republican Congressional Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC N/A 12/31/2001 $20,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON, DC 6/13/2001 $20,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte
ROSEN, HILLARY B
CHEVY CHASE, MD RECORDING INDUSTRY 3/28/2001 $5,000 Democratic National Cmte
ROSEN, HILLARY B MS
CHEVY CHASE, MD RECORDING INDUSTRY AMERICAN ASSOC. 5/16/2002 $5,000 Democratic National Cmte
VALDEZ, DONALDJ MR
MANSFIELD, TX RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC. OF A 7/12/2002 $297 Republican National Cmte

Source: OpenSecrets.org

Dave Ralis' Pave The Grass column appears on Mondays. You can send him an e-mail at dralis@phillyburbs.com or call him at 215-269-5051. To read his previous columns, click here.

This is from the show that aired Monday, July 28, 2003.

The Daily Show On RIAA's Funny Commercials and Suing It's Own Customers (Small - 7 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)