An advertisement I'd like to see

This is why the RIAA can burn in hell

From http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/06/07/20/1651223.shtml?tid=147"

Beckerman is highly critical of the typical procedure in these cases -- and of judges who do not understand the technical issues involved. He describes the cases as beginning with an investigator locating a folder with copyrighted songs on a file-sharing network such as Kazaa. Without further research, the investigator takes a screenshot that shows only the text and meta-data. Through what Beckerman calls a "concealed process" -- a phrase that hints darkly of collusion and violation of privacy -- the investigator associates the folder with a dynamic IP address. The RIAA then issues a series of John Doe law subpoenas (ones brought against anonymous defendants) to obtain the name and address of the subscriber associated with that IP address.

These cases are brought in a city far away from the person who is about to become the defendant. Typically, defendants learn about the request for personal information only a few days before the hearing, and have no idea that they are about to be sued. "They don't have copies of court orders or any papers filed," Beckerman says. "They have absolutely no way to resist." Some learn about the subpoenas only after they receive a court order directing them to turn over their personal information. He describes this maneuver as "entirely illegal." Pointing out that tracing an IP address to a particular provider is simple, he adds that the RIAA must be "purposefully bringing those cases where they know that the people do not live so that they will get no information of any kind."

And this gem:

After talking in general terms, Beckerman briefly described two of the cases that he believes could have far-reaching consequences. In Elektra vs. Barker, the defendant is a nursing student who lives in a housing project. The defence has made a motion to dismiss, because the case "doesn't specify any acts, dates, or times of copyright infringement as the laws normally require." In response, the RIAA claims that "merely making files available on the Internet is in and of itself a copyright infringement" -- an argument, as Beckerman points out that, if successful, "would probably bring down the entire Internet. Because of the implications of this argument, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the US Internet Industry Association have intervened on behalf of the defence, and the Motion Picture Association of America and the US Department of Justice on behalf of the prosecution. Potentially, the case could decide the fate of the RIAA cases one way or another. Yet, Beckerman says, "We've received no support of any kind from anywhere."

In UMG vs. Lindor, the defendant "is a home house-aid who's never even used a computer," according to Beckerman. "She's never operated a computer, she's never even turned on a computer. The only connection she has ever had to a computer is that she has on occasion dusted near the parts that she believes are a computer. And yet she is being pursued as an online distributor in peer-to-peer file sharing."

Since Beckerman became involved in the case after it had gone to federal court, he has tried to learn the details of the charges -- so far with little success. "The RIAA is trying to conceal the information about how it conducts its 'investigation,'" he says. "They have stalled every discovery request we've made" -- presumably because to reveal this information would also reveal the weakness of all the similar cases.

Looking out for the rights of artists? My ass.

Star Trek + Monty Python and The Holy Grail

 
= the crew from the original series singing Camelot

Yes, it's as crazy as it sounds. Thanks stahi.