Appeals Court Rules Against RIAA in DMCA Subpoena Case 839
JohnTheFisherman writes "My Way News is reporting that a Federal appeals court ruled that the RIAA can't compel the ISP to provide the name of the downloaders in their case against Verizon. In fact, the court said that one of the arguments the RIAA used 'borders upon the silly.' I believe most here will agree that this is great news." We've been following this case for a while.
Good News! but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Go Judicial system! (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems no matter how badly the executive branch and the legislative branch gum up the works with silly laws and larger than life egos the Judicial system keeps them in check.
It's a Beautiful Day! (Score:5, Insightful)
This ruling will help re-establish anonymity on the internet, as users can worry much less about being identified by a vengeful 3rd party-- be it a record label cracking down on copytright violators, a corporation trying to stifle criticism or a politician trying to un-nerve his opposition. This is a beautiful ruling, and if it stands, its effect will reverberate fare part the file sharing arena.
Those Souless dogs of the RIAA.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yay for Judicial Restraint! (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, it's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is great news. Incentive, really. Yes, the lawsuit was against Verizon, but I see no reason why other companies (and individuals) shouldn't stand up and challenge a lot of what has been going on. It's not necessarily that our judicial system has been in agreement with the RIAA, it's just that people have had no precedence working for them in a courtside challenge. The question now is, which do we take on: the RIAA, or the DMCA itself?
Damon,
Re:Yeah, great news for the pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
Good Thing, But... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us rejoice in this one small/big victory for regular people. You know as big as these lawsuits were supposed to be there's been little if any in the news about them. I think it's more of a campaign of disinformation than anything and some people are weak enough to buy it but most aren't ignorant to what's going on.
Ponder this...how long until we get pulled over by the police for speeding or something else along those lines and they search our vehicles for mps's burned on cdr's? I can just see being in the "bighouse" with a bunch of murderers and rapists and then they ask me what I did. Oh I just burned some Britney Spears song to a cd. What's that Bubba? Do I have to drop 'em and grab my ankles?
Our future police state sounds so much fun!
Be prepared (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully if things go right... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, I run a mailing list for travel agents and although collusion among travel agents is illegal (against the Sherman Antitrust Act) I have the list protected via the DMCA. If a vendor gets his hands on a private email from the mailing list, then it's a violation of DMCA just by possessing it.
Maybe we need to start thinking about ways of using the DMCA to protect ourselves. It's not just for big corporations.
IANAL need help (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok so verizon is arguing that it isn't responsible for what data the users of their service send? that they should only be responsible for data on their servers?
this makes perfect sense to me if i'm reading this right. data is data how is verizon suppose to know what the data is other then the fact that it run on port X and port X is known to be the default port for kazaa.
In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."
if i was correct before why would this seem silly to the judge? loophole? how is it a loophole? does the USPS scan every mail going through it's buildings for copies of music? it seems to me that kazaa was just speeding up the process.
Ok other then the fact that most ISP block port 80 and 21 (among other ports) why doesn't these P2P services just use a well known port to transfer files? then in order to shutdown P2P they would have to shutdown the WWW. if i download a song off a computer of port 80 how would verizon/any ISP know it was a copyrighted song?
Something a lot of you are missing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two comments: (Score:5, Insightful)
The not great part is definitely the scope of the court, but it's a darned good start. I wonder if the RIAA will try to take it to the Supremes?
You've missed the most important part: (Score:4, Insightful)
This means that the RIAA and others will just lobby Congress, and a law that they can use will be passed.
We're still screwed, privacy-wise, because this development will be temporary.
Old subpoenaed info now inadmissable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Naturally, if this ruling stands, I see no other possible result than to either force the RIAA to do just that--file lawsuits before recieving personal info--, or to stop shaking down end users through threats of multi-million dollar lawsuits.
Re:Have a reality check (Score:2, Insightful)
[flame on]
The sacrament of marriage, okay, fine I suppose I can accept that. However, the dispute isn't over sacramental unions, it's over civil unions.
What really gets me about this issue is the right-wing's constant harping about "defense of marriage" (even going so far as to pass a law called the "Defense of Marriage Act." You want to preserve marriage? Outlaw divorce. And start by arresting all the members of congress who've had affairs or divorces.
[/flame off]
SBC Venue Change (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Have a reality check (Score:0, Insightful)
The arguments behind allowing people attracted to their own gender to marry each other don't fly. 'The right to marry whoever you choose'? Should they be allowed to marry their brothers/sisters then? What if I choose to marry more then one women, can I do that? But I love them both, don't deny me my civil rights!
A brief analysis of the court's opinion: (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic holding here is that the subpoena provisions of the DMCA only apply to an ISP who is actually storing the allegedly infringing material on its (the ISP's) servers.
They base this holding on a finding that, in the case of file-sharing between users, the ISP is simply acting as a conduit for the transfer of information, and has no control over the transfer or the information sent. Since the subpoena provision has a notice provision in it that requires that the content-provider give the ISP enough information to be able to prevent access to the offending material. Since preventing access is impossible without terminating the offender's internet access, a remedy the court dismissed as inappropriate, the court found satisfaction of the notice provision to be impossible.
The court also ruled that the text of the statute and the legislative history (i.e., comments made and written by Congress as they debated the DMCA before passing it) indicated no awareness of P2P file sharing.
The court ends by stating that it is "not unsympathetic" to the RIAA's "plight", but it leaves the burden on Congress to change the law, if they think it really needs changing. Rough translation: Start winding up the lobbyists, they have work to do.
will judges save us? (Score:5, Insightful)
DMCA. PATRIOT ACT. CAN-SPAM. Infinite copyright extension.
Congress doesn't get it. The President doesn't get it. If businesses get it, it won't matter because their interests aren't aligned with ours. If the voters get it, it may not matter if the votes aren't counted right (paperless voting machines).
The only hope is if the judges get it. For the next few elections, I think judicial appointments will be the key factor in who I vote for.
Stories like this give me a little hope.
It's a short-term win, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me that the gist of the judges' takes are "look, the fact that we don't like this filesharing thing any more than you do doesn't mean that you can twist and turn the present laws for your own purposes. Lobby for better laws, and then we'll talk and we'll probably agree with you."
This language is the most worrisome to me:
The implication is that the present internet architecture is damaging to the music industry, and the music industry's woes have nothing whatsoever to do with fundamental failures to serve the market.
I'm not jumping for joy at this ruling. If anything, it's a short-term gain embedded in language that is entirely slanted towards the industry.
-chuck
Does this apply to non-RIAA material? (Score:4, Insightful)
but with statements like:
No matter what information the copyright owner may provide, the ISP can neither "remove" nor "disable access to" the infringing material because that material is not stored on the ISP's servers. Verizon can not remove or disable one user's access to infringing material resident on another user's computer because Verizon does not control the content on its subscribers' computers
Doesn't that seem to take the burden from the ISP for making sure that the offending material is removed from the subscriber's system?
Re:not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but this just reverts things back to the way they are supposed to work. You have to file the lawsuit first and then subpoena the information you need. Otherwise, if you're simply allowed to subpoena outside of a formal lawsuit, you're just on a fishing expedition. Forcing the RIAA to file a lawsuit means they have to have some reasonable suspicion that a user is sharing files. Otherwise, it will get tossed out of court, and if they do this enough times, someone will come down on them hard.
Re:Double Edged Sword (Score:3, Insightful)
I for one welcome our new, monogamous overlords. (Score:1, Insightful)
"Marriage" as viewed by the COURTS is more like a CONTRACT between two people.
"Marriage" as viewed by various churches (but not all of them) is something that [GOD, The GODS, GODDESS] has said is HOLY when performed according to the rules in their holy book.
Big difference there.
If you want to preserve marriage, you start by restricting bad marriages and making other marriages unbreakable and CRIMINALIZING acts that would break a marriage.
Adultry is a CRIME.
Staying out all night with the guys is a CRIME.
Flirting with someone else is a CRIME.
Re:Have a reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
If gay marriage bothers you, there is an easy solution: Don't marry someone of the same gender! Other than that, it should have no effect on you. If gay adoption makes you sick there is another easy solution: Don't let a gay couple adopt your kids! Once again you can live your life without it having any effect on you.
Re:Access to information? Most traffic IS illegal (Score:2, Insightful)
The RIAA suit about subpoena power was not about going after individual uploaders, it was about dragging big wealthy ISPs (competitors of AOL, which is also a giant media company, at least it was) into the liability circus and putting them out of business through litigation. That way, AOL could be big again.
The mere fact that Universities snoop their networks makes them partially liable for the illegal stuff that goes on. Knowledge of any illegal act makes you responsible for reporting that act to the authorities. If you witness a crime, you're technically required by law to roll over on everyone involved.. anything else is obstruction of "justice"
Trials for terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard people say things like "In times like this we have to..." and thats BS. If the rules are only there when its easy, then they don't count for diddily. It is just as important important that Padila get a fair trial as it is that Joe Blow the convenience store robber get one.
Really, if we live in a nation where the ruler can say "he's bad, let's just shoot him, no need for a trial", how is that different from the way Saddam ran things?
Re:Have a reality check (Score:0, Insightful)
All kinds of ways to abuse this...
Single parents? (Score:0, Insightful)
Single parents do, actually, produce unbalanced and confused children.
Re:Have a reality check (Score:1, Insightful)
You can base your beliefs on what you feel is right, but why should the rest of the country be forced to agree with you? You believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but not everyone agrees with you. Why should they not be allowed to live as they see fit? Is that somehow hurting you?
I will never understand why people feel an overpowering need to force their religous beliefs on other people. You live by what you feel is right, and I'll live by what I feel is right. The state will make sure that we're not allowed to live in a way that we can hurt each other. Until you can prove that what you believe is right then your religion is no better than mine.
Re:Have a reality check (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're against gay marrage, then don't marry a gay person. Other than that, why should it bother you?
Re:What's going on? (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Ashcroft's been pushing out judicial authority in sentencing guidelines, and that has turned even the more moderate of judges (who tend to be, *duh* well educated and well read) against the Bush Administration.
2) Bush tried to pack the courts with neo-conservatives. How would you like it if any decision you make on unconstitutional grounds was overturned because the person in the higher (or equal) court really doesn't give a flying fleck about the constitution?
The courts, for good or ill, tend to be the most educated of the 3 branches of government. This does not mean that they're on the bleeding edge, tech wise, but they DO tend to be quick studies. And since justice moves *slow* by the time it reaches an appeals court, the technical issues DO catch up.
-- Funksaw
Re:Have a reality check (Score:5, Insightful)
"Everyone has the right to marry, provided that their partner is of a different gender..."
That's like saying everyone has freedom of speech as long as they are Republicans. In today's society, marriage has financial, legal, and social benefits attached to it. These benefits are not contingent on producing offspring (though that can have different benefits). Marriage is a legal recognition that two people have chosen to commit to each other in financial, social, and legal ways and have common interests in these areas (such as owning a home, sharing credit and debt, legal guardianship of children, etc.).
There is no argument that can explain why this should only apply to couple made up of a man and a woman. The only thing this provides you with is, in some cases, the potential for offspring. However, not all marriages produce children or will ever, such as the infertile, women past menopause, or those who just don't want to have children. Also, gay couples can have children, though perhaps not a genetic offspring of both (adoption, in vitro fertilization, surrogates, etc.). And that isn't to say that they will never be able to. The potential exists to artificially combine genes of a gay couple to produce an offspring. (Lesbians could only have girls, however.)
If gay couples are to be denied marriage because they cannot directly produce offspring (now), then why aren't all other marriages that can't, or won't? It doesn't hold water. The point is, some people are being denied benefits that others are being given. That is not equal rights at all.
And to clarify, before any confusion, I am not gay and don't have any gay friends (that I know about), though I have had a few gay acquaintences. I'm just cursed with a love of reason and logic, and there's no reason or logic behind denying gays the right to marry.
Re:Have a reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does everyone have to keep excusing themselves from being gay while defending human rights? It defeats the purpose.
Re:Have a reality check (Score:2, Insightful)
So, um, people didn't get married before Christianity existed?
Thank God the founder of Protestantism (Henry VIII) was such a role model: of the seven people he married, all were women.
Re:Two comments: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, other jurisdictions are not bound by this ruling, but it is persuasive and they may choose to follow it. At the very least, it will be cited heavily in other jurisdictions. And the court really did what they should have, they followed the words of the statute without going beyond the Act to see intent or something like that. If other circuits split, then it becomes a ripe issue for the Supreme Court to take on, and given their penchant for first following the plain language of the law, I would be suprised to see a decision that does not mirror todays.
In short, good news for Verizon, and better news for Internet users!
Re:Have a reality check (Score:2, Insightful)
People of Jewish faith get married (hello, *Jesus Christ*'s parents were married). People of Islamic faith get married. ATHEISTS get married.
Noone's saying gays should be allowed to get married in a Catholic church -- that's for Catholics to decide (for example). What they're saying is that the LEGAL STATE of marriage should extend to gay couple as well as straight ones.
I've yet to see a logical objection to that premise. All attempts should consider *in particular* that an atheist, straight couple is perfectly entitled to get married in all 50 states.
Or, put another way, ALL RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO GAY MARRIAGE ARE INVALID for this discussion. This is (or should be) a legal discussion, not a moral or religious one.
When you can show how an atheist heterosexual marriage should be allowed but gay marriage should not, you'll have my attention. Reproductive capability is clearly irrelevant, as it's not a prerequisite for heterosexual marriage.
Xentax
Re:I love the smell of Irony in the morning! (Score:4, Insightful)
The copyright holders can still subpoena names from ISPs, but now they have to file 'John Doe' lawsuits and go through the judicial process to obtain the subpoenas. This is much more expensive, which means they won't be issuing them in the hundreds any more.
The Law of Unintended Consequences.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks to me like the appeals court might just have ruled that Verizon is a common carrier.I'm not at all sure this is a good thing. This is why.
I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, under U.S. law common carriers (like the phone company) are legally obligated to provide service to all comers at a reasonable price, and for any legal purpose. They cannot pick and choose their customers. In return, they are shielded from liability for what others do using their service. For example, the phone company isn't liable for fraudulent telemarketing calls because it is a common carrier.
I can think of one possible pitfall right now if ISPs are deemed common carriers. ISPs set their own rules for proper use of their networks -- these are called Authorized Use Policies (AUP) or Terms of Service (TOS). Violations of an ISP's AUP/TOS can and often do result in the violator being disconnected. The most common violators are spammers.
Thanks (NOT!) to the CAN-Spam Act foisted on us by our foolish and venal Congress and President, spam is legal in the United States as of January 1. :( I am no lawyer, but I do not think a common carrier can legally forbid use of its services for *any* legal purpose. So, if ISPs become common carriers, can they continue to ban use of their networks for spamming?
Even worse, if ISPs are deemed common carriers, can they block email that was sent in compliance with U.S. law?
Re:Have a reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
- The primary purpose of a marriage is to grant legal status to a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage.
- Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
- Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
I have not made up my mind on the subject of same sexed marriage. To me, it isn't an imporant issue .
Re:Have a reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to throw in a tiny factual statement, though: marriage existed before Christians did. There are many married people in the US (and *gasp* the world) who support the idea of marriage and are not Christians. Marriage may be "sacred" to Christians. Beef is sacred to Hindus. Should we pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting McDonalds? "Eating beef? That's just sick."
Re:Have a reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea of marriage is used in Christianity, but it is used in many religions and cultures. Most of the concepts in Christian marriage come from Christianity's parent religion: Judaism. It, like so many other "Cristian Values" are not in any way unique to Christianity. They tend to be general societal norms.
And I would also argue with your "Marriage, by definition, can only be between a man and a woman" statement. This is your definition.
And finally, I can see that you simply do not understand how children are raised across this country. There are so many children that are being raised by single parents. I would agree that an ideal environment for children would have multiple caregivers, but I disagree strongly that this environment must be only one man and one woman.
If you look at the societies with the healthiest families they most often have extended families. Most often this is associated with the phrase "It takes a village to raise a child". I would argue that two women or two men who love each other raising a child together are going to be far better role models than most (but not all) single parent situations.
I think you are simply too blinded by the way you were raised/indoctrinated to be able to see what really makes a family work. But I respect your right to disagree with me.
Re:Have a reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor is there an argument that says it should apply to couples. If gay marriage is OK, why not polygamy? After all, it's only some religions that say marriage has to be between two people.
And to clarify, before any confusion, I'm not a Muslim, or a Mormon outcast. I do have some Muslim friends.
Re:Have a reality check (Score:1, Insightful)
Please understand, this is not a judgement of people choices, just an observation about the proper way of doing things (IMHO)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
The music industry has practices market control and price manipulation.
Given that, I side with the 60 million+ file swappers and they have my sympathy, not the RIAA.
Re:No Judiciary! No! Bad Judiciary!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't get the revolution, I guess."
No, you don't get it. The $0.00 price tag isn't what 'the pedantic slashbots' are defending. If that were true, iTunes would not be wildly successful. Instead, what we really want is for the Music Industry to realize there is demand here, and supply it. Instead, they insist we buy their content at a premium, thus paying for content we do not want. (I happen to know for a fact that at some point in your life, you bought an album and only liked a song or two on it.) Since the RIAA is an oligopoly, what they say goes, no matter what consumer demand is. Because that, they have no need to innovate. If they had any real competition whatsoever, we'd have had internet music legitimately for years now.
That's just one facet of the problem. Another one is the whole 'downloading == stealing' crap. Yes, there is a scenario where you can download music, not pay for it, and it would be rightfully called stealing. However, you cannot apply the term 'stealing' as an umbrella term encompassing everybody who downloads music. Why? Simple. How many people are downloading Mp3s of the music they already have so they can just have one big playlist instead of swapping CDs? How many people are downloading a song because they heard it on the radio a million times? Why would downloading the MP3 be worse than hooking a radio up to your computer and capturing it off the airwaves? How many people are browsing, looking for new music to get into? If they download the song, listen 2-3 times, then either stop listening or just delete it, have they really stolen?
Music in the digital age is being stifled. We want music in compressed format. We want our collection to be available at the click of a mouse. We want to be able to get new music off the internet. We want to have matchbook-sized MP3 players so we can toss those huge clunky CD players that only hold an hour music. We want the ability to search for new music and expand our tastes. We want to pay on a per-song basis instead of being forced to buy an album containing music we may not want.
None of these requests are unreasonable. However, the RIAA fought against providing them, calling people thieves in the process. So, the people felt the need to become independent and create their own delivery channel. Illegal? Yes. Immoral? Yes, in a sense. It was also immoral to abuse oligopoly power.
I doubt you'll read my post and instantly agree with me, but I do hope you'll at least reward the time I spent writing this by just considering some of the things I've said. It's really hard to call it stealing when people are obviously willing to spend lots of money on digital music. ($399 for an iPod, for example.)
Re:The country is not as safe today... (Score:4, Insightful)
Padilla is an American citizen and he has the same rights that you or I have. Why is the government so scared of bringing him to trial? Oh, that's right, they don't have any evidence.
The President cannot just declare somebody an "enemy combatant" and keep them in prison forever.
Re:No Judiciary! No! Bad Judiciary!! (Score:2, Insightful)
The system of checks and balances is what keeps this nation from being destroyed by idiots like you. By not giving any one branch total power, we help protect the health of the republic. You are a fucking tool.
Re:Have a reality check (Score:5, Insightful)
Customs and traditions change as society changes. Why should this one be different than any others?
An even better arguement is: If it's a tradition or custom, why does it guarantee special protections under the law? Why do married couples pay less taxes than unmarried couples? Why is it that married couples can get joint health insurance that's significantly cheaper than 2 separate policies? Why can married couples qualify for lower interest rates on house loans.
If it's tradition, let's leave the corporations and government out of it, and make it the sole realm of the churches.
Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
Gay sex and marriage are immoral, as are divorce and infidelity. It's no surprise that a place which has one type of immorality has another. So there may be general society problems causing both, it may not be gay marriage itself destroying values.
Gay sex is immoral? How is it any more immoral than straight couples doing it in the butt? Huh? If marriage creates morality out of immorality (ok sex where there was immoral pre-marital sex), then why deny this to gays?
Look, the arguement is "marriage is blah, special, a sacrement, this, that, the other thing". Fine. Whatever. Call that marriage, and call equal protection for couples under the law "civil union".
The arguement stands like thus:
Conservative Preacher: "Gay marriage would ruin the specialness of marriage"
Gays: "Fine, whatever, don't call it marriage. In the mean time, we have a loving, monomogous relationship, and your laws are costing us a lot of money that we wouldn't have to otherwise pay if we were like you".
Conservative Preacher: "Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman."
Gays: "Dude. Don't call it marriage if it makes you feel better. Whatever. But, whatever the civil, protected by US law equivilancy is, we'd like to have that".
Conservative Preacher: "Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage."
Gays: "How does the ability of two people to have children relate to their home loan interest rate? To their need to pay more taxes? To their need for more expensive health insurance (no children should mean less expensive health insurance)?"
Whatever. Every arguement I've heard against gay marriage goes back to the definition of marriage, which is defined in an anti-gay religious sense. However, somehow this has been extended to the law, and it's just stupid. There are 2 parts to a union-between-two-people. One is the part that the church, god, and your parents will recognize. The other is the one that the IRS, blue cross/blue shield, and Century21 will recognize. All that most gay people want is the 2nd part, and they're even willing to not call it marriage, opting for calling it what it really is, a "civil" (or having to do with the law) "union" (partnership of two people).
~Will
Re:Have a reality check (Score:5, Insightful)
What they're saying is that the LEGAL STATE of marriage should extend to gay couple as well as straight ones. I've yet to see a logical objection to that premise.
I've yet to see a logical explanation as to why the government cares at all about who is married to whom. IMO, the whole problem would just go away if we got rid of marriage licenses, different taxation for married couples, different rules for asset ownership by married couples and all the rest of that claptrap.
Who people choose to live with, sleep with, share their incomes with, etc., is no one's business but theirs.
I happen to think this notion of redefining the term 'marriage' to include homosexual relationships is also rather silly, but the whole thing would be much less of an issue if the government were just taken out of it.
I can't speak for everyone here (Score:5, Insightful)
Namely, their approach is you are guilty until proven innocent. This really sucks for those poor saps who are fingered by the RIAA as a theif to be proven innocent, only that person (or family) does not have the means to present themselves in court to proove their innocence. Therefore, they aren't left with much of a choice of action except to pay what they can (usually a hefty amount of their livlihood) and hope the RIAA will leave them alone.
Certainly there are people abusing the systems, but witch hunts have never been the solution. The RIAA also has not attempted to work with the P2P networks (to my knowledge) to resolve this is a civilized way. "Civil" to the RIAA is always followed by "Court". Just as I oppose Microsoft's business practices, I oppose the RIAA's and TicketMaster's and other monopolistic businesses that abuse their power.
Just because a monopoly exists doesn't mean I'm opposed to it straight away. Take the US Postal Service for instance. It goes without saying most people who send snail mail letters (not packages) use the USPS. In that way, the USPS is an effective monopoly. (do we not all go buy a bunch of 1 cent stamps when they bump up the cost of postage?) But aside from bumping up the postage three times in rapid succession in years past, they've been quite good about not *thoroughly* abusing their customers (some may argue when trying to send a package, but I'm talking about letters here).
In the end: does the RIAA have a right to sue copyright infringment? Yes. Do they even have a right to subpoena ISPs for the infringing user's contact information: Maybe (yes, under the Damn Merciless Corruption Act). Is their approach to this technology and even finding out the real infringers severly flawed? Hell yes. (a 12 year old, a Mac owner, and an old couple w/o a computer come to mind.)
'Tis not good news. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Have a reality check (Score:2, Insightful)
What's remarkable is that the "religious" right, who have long used the AIDS epidemic to support their case, are now putting themselves on record against monogamy for gay couples. The mind just boggles.
Re:No Judiciary! No! Bad Judiciary!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Outside of the MA court system, the 9th circuit is a prime example of this jucicial activism abuse. It's stacked liberal 2:1. That means any 3-judge panel is most likely going to end up 2:1 liberal. Talk about stacking the courts. They need to be more MODERATE. It shouldn't be surprising that 3/4's of all appealed 9th circuit judments that get accepted are overturned.
I'd also like to point out that it is NOT the job of the legislature to decide WHO gets to become a judge -- but to decide of they can/are qualified to do the job once nominated by the executive branch.
These are two outragous examples of two branches operating outside the separation of powers.
-jhon
Re:Hopefully if things go right... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have the list protected via the DMCA. If a vendor gets his hands on a private email from the mailing list, then it's a violation of DMCA just by possessing it.
Which part of the DMCA covers this situation? I don't see anything that protects you. The list posts are copyrighted, sure, but copies made for expository purposes are Fair Use, so if someone on the list said something damning, it could be published in the New York Times and you couldn't do much about it.
If you have some sort of anti-copying technology protecting the list, you might have recourse to go after someone who sells a device that circumvents your technology. However, you have no recourse against someone who develops and uses such a device, as long as they don't distribute or market it.
And as far as the mere possession of a copy being a DMCA violation, I think you're completely up in the night.
Re:No Judiciary! No! Bad Judiciary!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
I see no difference between not being allowed to buy an individual song and not being allowed to play an individual song from a CD you own, other than the excess money the industry gets in the former for things you don't want.
Re:Have a reality check (Score:1, Insightful)
Silly legal arguments should be punished (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The country is not as safe today... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
The reverse is that the musician's message may not be the same message you recieve. That is what is so interesting about art, it's not always percieved the same.
So what if you don't get the musician's entire message? Most probably don't, because they percieve things differently. If they want to browse the musician's entire repretoire, then so be it. If they want only one song, there shouldn't be anything preventing you from just having that one song.
Though it's the musician's work, ultimately it's the listener who chooses what the work means. Not the other way around.
Also, if you're only hearing (and therefore interested) in ONE song, then it's probably due to that song being on the radio. That's pretty limited and you might want to expand your horizons past what some large corporation tells you to like.
Interesting. You seem to believe that what the musician wants you to listen to (the whole of the album) is greater than your own decision (regardless of external influences). You say you should expand your horizons past what a large corporation tells you to, shouldn't you also expand past what an individual (or music group) tells you to as well? Seems like you're telling people to bow to one form of external influence than another. Neither should be acceptable. You choose what you listen to, when you listen to, how you listen to.
The freedom to choose is a powerful ideal. It should be upheld in most situations, especially trivial ones such as choice of art.
Re:Well (Score:1, Insightful)
If there is no financial gain to be had in making albums, artists will have to find another format. That's always been true, and there's no reason it should be any different now. That's why so few symphonies are written these days.
This gets to the core of the problem as I see it. Everyone looks at this problem as a question of theft. I see it as a market problem, and there should be a market solution (I'm not always a free-market advocate, but in this case it seems logical). Very few people seem to recognize that the sale and distribution of CDs is a dying business model. Theft is a sideshow -- filetrading is about first and foremost about a different means of access, and those that don't roll with the changes are bad businessmen. Whoever can give the value-added element that the likes of kazaa lacks wins. And the dino-record industry loses. Welcome to the world of Adam Smith.
Consider an analogy: in the 1920s, ice producers were suddenly hit with a machine that could produce ice in the home, negating the need for all that cutting and hauling. Were people who used ice machines thieves? Of course not. But if this were going on today, is it so farfetched to imagine the ice-cutters' guild suing GE or individual icebox owners?
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the real problem is that instead of facing the painfully obvious conclusion that there was a demand for digital music on the internet, they tried to take an existing technology and make it non-upwards-compatible. They wanted to make CDs not work in newer gadgets (like computers, which also killed a lot of other newer cd players which were more like customized cd-roms). They tried to sue their own potential customers who were guilty of wanting to listen to music instead of try to offer them a legal alternative. They have been artificially inflating the prices of cds for around 20 years now (and were CONVICTED in court of this), while giving the artists responsible for the music a very small portion of their profits.
If you can't find one reason in there to not like the RIAA, please let me know why.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot doesn't dare mention the damage to the music industry.
Maybe that's because the "music industry" hasn't proven that piracy is really what's damaging it?
Hell, they haven't even proven they're "damaged." All they show is that "sales" aren't meeting "projections." I can think of a few obvious legit reasons why that might happen:
Their "projections" are over-optimistic, culled from thin air to look good on a PowerPoint slide in some strategy meeting. In reality, the economy is swirling the bowl, and their customers (generally young, and therefore highly economically vulnerable) just can't be shelling out for price-fixed $18.99 CDs right now.
Or how about, everybody's replaced their "classic rock" vinyl with CDs by now, and the industry just doesn't have anything "in the pipe" to appeal to that crowd - they might sell a few Norah Jones CDs to old Fleetwood Mac fans or something, but for the most part, they've not provided anything to keep their "classic rock" customers buying new CDs, they haven't even tried to cultivate that segment. Result: That percentage of their market is lost to them.
Here's another idea: "The industry" is hopelessly out-of-touch with its market. It's no secret they've been trying to cater to an uncontroversial lowest-common-denominator for years, but does such a strict LCD even exist? Is the "Balkanization" of the music market into genres (Country, Rock/Pop, Jazz, Rap, etc.) even a natural thing, or an industry-sponsored artificiality that's costing them potential cross-over audiences? I like heavy metal andcountry/western, do I even exist in their market research studies? Probably not, as I understand it, a consumer who likes more than one "genre" is beyond their comprehension.
And by the by:
I used to disagree with the RIAA's tactics, but when I think about this situation, I really do have to wonder.
I still disagree with their tactics, and in my case, they've managed to do the same thing the BSA has: after the BSA started their sweeps, I switched to Linux and OSS and haven't looked back - I don't want anything of theirs in my house that *could* create a potential search, period. Ditto the RIAA, I don't buy "industry" CDs now, or download non-indie MP3s. Nice tactic they got there.
But what I really wonder about, is this: When an American loses his job to outsourcing, he gets no sympathy - not even recognition that the way the US is set up, he just lost his health insurance, retirement security, may still have student loans to pay, and lives in a society that has been intentionally contrived to make the $600/mo average tithe to car ownership mandatory to remain viable! No, he gets a lecture on "free market forces," "change," and "reality," and is accused of wanting "protectionism."
When an American corporation turns profits that aren't as high as its own "projections," thanks to a "change" in "free market forces," rather than being told to face "reality," they instead get deputized as their own private extra-judicial, extra-constitutional police force to pursue "protectionism" of their own obsolete market. And then people like the parent poster express sympathy, too.
I really, really wonder about that.
Re:Well (Score:2, Insightful)
Artists make much more money on live performances than they do on albums. Recorded music is a creation of the record companies. The companies the RIAA represents makes the VAST majority of the revenue from the recorded music.
An album is generally a good way for an artist to get exposure, get radio airplay and pack in the live shows. Very few succesful albums have not been backed up by live tours.
Previously recording companies offered equipment and services that were difficult for an individual to acquire. Now it's relatively cost effective to build a sound studio in your basement with excellent recording equipment. Many artists record in their home studios. CDs are even easy to burn. I know several local bands that burn and sell their own CDs at their shows. All the major recording studios are offering now is marketing. To be huge these days you get signed by a major studio, they run a few MTV spots and next thing you know you sold out Madison Square Gardens and are a kazillionaire.
If we stop buying CDs, start downloading music and radio stations actually pickup stuff that independent artists produce their revenue model will go right down the tubes and no one will care - just like the ice producers.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
While there's no problem with a poor choice of words, this is a situation where the use of the word "steal is often intentional. The RIAA is quite famous for using inflammatory language and hyperbole to make copyright infringers seems like Satan's spawn. The few supports of the RIAA on this site tend to adopt their (mis)use of language in a feeble attempt to justify their position. The gist of the problem is that when you call infringers thieves and call infringing theft or stealing, then it becomes far easier to convince the average ignorant Joe that they should be sued/jailed/killed or what have you. Most who use the words in that way tend to vehemetly defend their (mis)use, despite the ample evidence that the US legal system makes every possible distinction there is between theft and copyright infringement. The word 'theft' or 'steal' is not used once within US copyright law to the best of my knowledge. If it is, it's yet to have been pointed out to me.
In other words, it's not a big deal so long as you're not intentially misleading people through word choice, but it's always best to use more accurate language whenever possible. Just remember that there are goofballs on here who still think that copyright infringement == theft. It's a bit like watching a guy grab some woman's purse and then screaming "MURDERER!! MURDERER!!" as he runs off so that a group of citizens tackle and beat the hell out of him.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple: there is no copyright infringement involved in stealing cable. You see, copyright law covers the right to make copies of a work. COPY-RIGHT, get it? Stealing cable, however, is actual theft of a resource (signal strength), and results in PAYING customers being deprived of it's full benefit.
Downloading MP3s, however, is NOT theft, because it doesn't deprive anyone of anything. It is, however, an unauthorized copy, which makes it a violation of copyright law, and it's existence is an infringement of the right of the copyright holder to control who gets to make copies of their work and under what terms.
You could make the arguement that the copyright holder is deprived of their right of control, and you would be correct, but "stealing" would still not be the proper term. Rights are not "stolen". Do you call it "stealing" when someone is held without due process? No. Do you call it "stealing" when someone isn't allowed to speak their opinions or practice their religeon? No.
For the record, I agree with most of what you've said here, but you should really consider changing your sig. It makes you look ignorant.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Help me again here. I don't see where that pecking order comes from. Is that a legal thing or just a
From a legal standpoint, theft is a criminal offense (jail time, fines, etc), while non-commercial copyright infringement is entirely a civil matter (one party sues another). From a legal standpoint, copyright infringement sits on the level of a speeding ticket. Theft is, of course, far more serious.
As for it being brought even further into realm of being a non-offense, that is an opinion shared by a number of folks, mostly those who have been doing it for quite some time. My personal argument revolves around the RIAA being a corrupt organization as defined under the Federal RICO statute. If the RIAA (and member companies) are found to be corrupt organizations by a court, they would likely be unable to enforce their copyrights (hence, all lawsuits invalid). The copyrights would then, as I understand it, fall back into the hands of the original artists. I think a lot of this would be up to the judge in the particular cases concerned. My opinion, and the opinions of others here who complain that copyright infringement is a non-offense, have not been proven in any US court that I'm aware. I believe my opinion is legally sound, but would require enormous legal resources to execute, and would probably become the largest case is US history in terms of man-hours and expenses on both sides.
In other words, if Bill Gates wanted to dump his last dime into killing the RIAA, he probably would have a decent shot of doing it within 20 years or so. That being said, the individual artists would still retain the authority under US copyright law to sue those infringing upon their particular copyrights.
Re:Legalise P2P? (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright is not a human right. It is a government policy instituted as an incentive to get more works to the public and ultimately into the public domain. That is why they are required to expire.
Copyright can be a very good and usefull and beneficial policy. If you mistake it for a right then you start making bad and harmful law around it.
Re:But that's like... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's absolutely true. I'll admit that it'll hurt the artist... but really, remember that an album really is a collection of songs. To continue with the analogy, really what you mean is a gallery of paintings. Each individual song is a complete song, just like each individual painting is a complete painting. Your analogy would only work if I was removing choice melodies from the song itself and paying the artist a fraction of the cost.
If an artist means for the album to be heard as a whole, they should release the whole thing as one song. No one will debate whether you need to hear the whole thing or just parts of it. It's one song, the smallest acceptable denomination.
If the artist leaves it for interpretation, and each individual song is acceptable on it's own from a casual listener, then it's the listener's choice. If the artist wants to force us to see the whole meaning, make it one song.
Consequentally, I'll buy one painting. Now if he had made 9 paintings that each were well done, and together they made a bigger piece... (note that we can copy these paintings so that each is practically perfect, like the original), then it should be no problem for you to take just one painting. If he combines the 9 into one canvas, then obviously you'll buy the entire thing (because that's the smallest denomination), and he'll 'force' the so-called 'bigger' picture on you.