p2pnet - rss feed: Tech expert hacks at RIAA evidence
p2p news / p2pnet: A technical expert working with the lawyer who’s been handling the Patti Santangelo case hopes he’ll be opening a new factual frontier, for the first time debunking supposed evidence upon which many of the Big Four Organized Music cartel’s anti-p2p file sharing lawsuits are pinned.
Ray Beckerman has been looking for a way to crack the process through which Sony Music, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI supposedly “prove” someone has been infringing copyrights.
And Zi Mei is the man, Beckerman told p2pnet. “I’ve known him for a long time. He’s brilliant.”
Among other things, RIAA employee Jonathan Whitehead claims, “metadata accompanying each file [allegedly downloaded from defendants’ computers by the RIAA] demonstrates that the user is engaged in copyright infingement,” says Zi Mei in an affidavit supporting a motion to vacate an ex parte order.
‘Ex parte’ means, “one side has communicated to the Court without the knowledge of the other parties to the suit,” says Beckerman in an earlier explanation of the way the RIAA identifies its victims. It’s, “very rarely permitted, since the American system of justice is premised upon an open system in which, whenever one side wants to communicate with the Court, it has to give prior notice to the other side, so that they too will have an opportunity to be heard,” he says.
But, Zi Mei goes on in the document, the RIAA doesn’t even begin to explain how it manages to reach the conclusion that the metadata are proof of copyright infringement.
And that’s not surprising, he says, “since there is no correlation whatsoever between (a) metadat in the files allegedly downloaded by the RIAA and (b) the origin of these files.”
Zi Mei also emphasises that mp3 metadata are optional and may, or may not, be present in a file, and may or may not be accurate.
Since they’re aren’t part of the audio data, a computer or mp3 player can play files regardless of the existence or content of metatags, he says, also pointing out that literally anyone can create, edit or remove ID3/ID4 tags with software bundled with mp3 players, or any other easy to find applications.
“Simply put, there is no correlation between metadata in a file and the origin of the file,” states Zi Mei in his document. “In no way can it be used as a tracking mechanism like a FEDEX or UPS tracking number.
“It certainly cannot be used to determine whether the files allegedly found on the defendants’ computers got there legally or illegally, since those files could have been downloaded from an authorized online service, or copied legally from commercially purchased audio CDs.
Zi Mei also explains that moreover, hash files are equally useless as proof of wrong-doing.
On Recording Industry vs The People, Beckerman says at the core of the entire RIAA litigation process are:
(1) the mass lawsuit against a large number of “John Does”;
(2) the “ex parte” order of discovery; and
(3) the subpoenas demanding the names and addresses of the “John Does”.
“In Atlantic v. John Does 1-25, a case pending in federal court in Manhattan, a midwesterner sued as John Doe Number 8 has made motions which seek to knock out all three (3) prongs of the RIAA litigation machine,” he declares.
“On December 1st he made a motion to sever the mass lawsuit, and dismiss as to John Does 2-25, on the ground that it is impermissible to join 25 unrelated defendants under the federal rules, where there is no connection between the defendants other than the fact that they are accused of engaging in similar, but unconnected, conduct.
“Also on December 1st, he moved to quash the subpoena issued to his ISP, on the ground that the RIAA has not sufficiently alleged any copyright infringement.
“Today, December 28th, he has moved to knock out the third underpinning of the RIAA John Doe weaponry - the ex parte order.”
More to come on this. Stay tuned.
Also See:
earlier explanation - How the RIAA gets its victims, December 29, 2005
Beckerman - Programmer Challenges RIAA “Investigation” in Court Papers Filed Dec. 28th to Vacate “Ex Parte” Order, December 29, 2005
Patti Santangelo - Patti Santangelo fights Goliath: II, December 17, 2005
December 30th, 2005 at 2:27 am
Many of the available ripping software obtain the ID3/ID4 tag metadata from a free data base located at www.freedb.org.
There is no way, using the metadata information, to determine where the original or copies came from.
As a test, using the same ripping software and bitrate, I ripped a song on my office computer then ripped the same song on my home computer. The file lengths were exactly the same and “DOS file compare” found no differences.
December 30th, 2005 at 3:17 am
Not all kazaa users are bad people.
December 30th, 2005 at 3:19 am
This is exactly what should happen as a result of this courageous person fighting back. Experts from every field should come together to help. I’ll do what I can with a donation and see what else I can bring to the table…stay tuned indeed.
December 30th, 2005 at 3:50 am
I don’t really see the relevance of the origin of the file. The kink seems to be that it was available for download from her computer to start with.
On the other hand, did they actually download the file or are they just saying that there was a file on her computer with the same name of a copyrighted work? Unless they actually downloaded the file and can show a paper trail, for all they know it was actually a kid singing the song or a critique of it or something.
Also, it could simply have been a fake file such are sometimes found on P2P networks.
Don’t get me wrong - I hope she wins. A single Mom with five kids - yeah, I hope she wins.
December 30th, 2005 at 5:00 am
afaik, all the RIAA is contending is that the file existed on her computer, though they will state the obvious assumption is that she downloaded it since it was found through a p2p application.
I fail to see how any part of filesharing is illegal. If I don’t know how to rip a song for a CD I legally own, so I download it , is that illegal? Fair use says it’s not. If I share that song, is it my job to police who’s downloading that file, and make sure they own the CD before I let them download it?
I don’t understand how Carey Sherman can contend that sharing files is illegal. You have no way of knowing what the person downloading the file off you is going to do with it.
I do understand, however, that if you want to download a song to your PC for a CD you legally purchased, the RIAA wants you to buy it through a restricted channel. That’s complete BS.
December 30th, 2005 at 9:53 am
I don’t understand this. Could someone please explain what infringement the RIAA is actually claiming?
In a recent case, the RIAA initially claimed 1000 infinging tracks. The defence showed that all but 30 were owned on CD so the RIAA reduced the claim to 30. Doesn’t this mean that downloading, uploading and offering is legal provided you can show where your library came from?
So what is the crime here?
- Downloading. Well maybe, but from where? It’s actually not at all clear what sources are legal and what are not legal. And apparently if you download something you’ve already bought, that’s legal. Which means the RIAA ought to be *proving* that the tracks on your PC were copyright material and were obtained illegally. So they would have to have records of actual transfers of proveably copyright material from proveably non-authorised sources.
- Uploading. Well maybe, but then we need proof of actual uploading. And if the only proof they have is that the RIAA uploaded from your machine, surely that’s entrapment?
- Offering for upload. It’s way too easy to share bits of your PCs disk, or all of it. You could have a collection of 10,000 Mp3s that have all been ripped from CDs you’d bought, share the wrong directory and mistakenly offer them for upload with operating system commands or iTunes configuration. But if nobody actually downloads from you have you done anything wrong?
- Presence of copyright material on your machine. As for downloading, the RIAA ought to have to prove that you did not purchase it or obtained it from non-authorised sources. Given the wide possible sources and the number of CDs that my kids have just plain lost or destroyed, that’s damn hard.
The claims the RIAA are actually making against these John Does appears to be that
1) They run one of the 4 or 5 major P2P programs
2) They offered for share, files with filenames that appear to be the same as album and track titles of copyrighted work.
And that’s it. But that doesn’t actually prove any wrong doing. It says nothing about
1) What those files actually contain.
2) Where they were obtained.
3) Whether they were downloaded from an unauthorised source.
4) Whether they were ever uploaded to anybody.
So are they actually saying that running a specific piece of software on your machine is illegal? Or that the presence of certain file names on your PC is illegal? Or that it’s your responsibility to prove your innocence and not theirs to prove your guilt? All three of those are deeply suspect in terms of their effect on the law. Is it actually the uploading, downloading, offering to share or source of the offending files that is the problem? Do I have to keep a complete audit trail of every MP3 on my system next to a complete audit trail of every physical CD, cassette, vinyl or 8-track that goes through my life? And of course, not just my life but those of all my family members as well.
If the Santangelo case runs its course, it might actually help everybody else just by clarifying exactly what the RIAA is claiming in their 10s of 1000s of lawsuits. Because right now it’s not at all clear to me. And just to make it worse this is all USA law. Canada, UK, Europe and everywhere else they’re bringing cases have subtly different copyright laws that some times radically change the legal landscape over what is legal and illegal behaviour.
December 30th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
3) Whether they were downloaded from an unauthorised source.
How reliable is an Internet authorization is something that will always be imposible (with current technology, software and laws) to establish. Anyone can say “it is ok to download the songs and I am the owner of both the recording and the song”. We all know that if that is not on a signed document by a properly identified individual it is meaningless. Here in my juridiction such an concession of rights (I believe) has to be on a notarized public document, based on a rule written two hundred years before electronic documents came into existence.
Additionally anyone, not the copright owner, can edit an mp3 tag and state in it that the song is in the public domain or that copying is allowed by the owner when in fact he ownership may not exists or the owner is only a fractional owner who shares ownership with others who may oppose the granting of free copying righs (we are now in one of many very ambiguous - and never read by the legislators - parts of the copyright law, that allows each claimant on a copyright to independently authorize the use of the copyrighted matter).
Addituinally anyone edit a DVD and replace the no copy warnings with an “You may copy this DVD to your friends” message.
So can anyone take a CD or a DVD or a song and register it under a false owner name as a copyright owner and then authorrize copying. As a matter of fact 80 songs belonging to my family suffered this fate and the courts said that it was not infringement and took no action against the obvious infringers. A sure invitation to other to do the same thing.
Surely the entire copyright copying rights are nothing but a cloud of smoke left in the wake of technology. Congress and judges have no ideas what has hapenned or what hit them.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 30th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
“Surely the entire copyright copying rights are nothing but a cloud of smoke left in the wake of technology. Congress and judges have no ideas what has hapenned or what hit them. ”
I guess copyright an IP law is rather like money and the banking system then. It’s magic, smoke and mirrors and it only works becaus we all believe in it. But what happens when the society at large no longer believes? When the law becomes toothless because everybody ignores it and everyone is criminal?
Incidentally, I’ve been talking to a lawyer who specialises in UK IP law. In the UK, there is no concept of fair use. When it says “no unauthorised copying” that’s exactly what it means. Ripping a disk to load it on your iPod or copying it to have a backup breaks the terms of use. However there is zero case law around this type of usage for personal use. Not a single case. And just like the USA, the BPI have been suing individuals who have een settling out of court for arbitrary sums.