If it wasn't bad enough that the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) lawsuits against file-sharers are futile, unfair, and immoral, the RIAA is also beginning to distort the law. In many of these cases, the recording industry is urging judges to accept controversial legal theories on the proper way to bust file sharers. It's not clear whether this is a tactical effort to cut legal corners to save money, or a strategic effort to build lower court precedents for use in other cases.

Either way, these are frequently extremely unfair fights (such as in Atlantic v. Howell, where the defendant can't even afford a lawyer), and thus bad vehicles for making controversial new law. The judges simply aren't hearing both sides.

EFF is trying to do something about that.

EFF filed an amicus brief in Arista v. Does 1-21, a case against 21 Boston University students whose identities are being sought through a subpoena to the university. One of the anonymous students filed a motion to quash the subpoena, which is now pending before Judge Gertner in Boston. EFF's brief in Arista v. Does 1-21 focuses on two issues that have been the subject of several EFF briefs in the past: First Amendment protection for anonymous speech and clarifications between "distribution" and "making available" in the filesharing context.

For the amicus brief filed best place to buy viagra by EFF in Arista v. Does 1-21:

http://www.eff.org/files/arista-amicus.pdf

For the EFF report "RIAA v. the People: Four Years Later":

http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf

For this complete post by EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von Lohmann:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/02/arista-v-does-1-21-getting-riaa-play-rules