Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Government Media The Courts Your Rights Online News

RIAA Quashed 76

Posted by michael from the world's-smallest-violin dept.
FsG writes "According to an Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release, a Massachusetts district court has ordered that the RIAA subpoenas sent to MIT and Boston College be rejected. This ruling came in response to an RIAA request, filed earlier today, asking that MIT and Boston College be ordered to comply with subpoenas sent to them a month ago. 'We urge other colleges and Internet service providers to take similar steps to protect their users' privacy,' said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn." Following up on this story. Forcing the RIAA to have their subpoenas issued from the local court rather than Washington a) is legally correct and b) makes it harder (more expensive) for them to issue mass quantities.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Quashed More

RIAA Quashed

Comments Filter:

  • NOT a privacy victory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PeteyG ( 203921 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @07:13PM (#6651064) Homepage Journal
    The RIAA will just refile the subpoenas in the proper jurisdiction. This will just slow them down. This is a victory for the proper procedure of filing subpoenas, and NOT privacy!

    fp?
    • You are technically correct, however if RIAA does win this case, nothing would have prevented them to file on the order of 100,000s in DC at a bargain price. This way, the cost is higher, so they might be statisfied with 1000-2000 filed locally.
      • I'm not arguing your point, more like a reinforcement, but they still may file 100,000, but now they will have to send a lawyer/agent to every county [hopefully city?]

        file subpoenas where it alleges that copyright infringement occurs

        That's really going to hurt at the outset, even more if they lose many cases. Plus look at all the money wasted on the first batch. No supoena for you! Back of the line!

      • Their costs to bring these frivolous subpoenas and lawsuits is going up. Take their money away by boycotting them, [dontbuycds.org] and they will be forced to stop. File trading is promotion, not theft, and the genie isn't going back into the bottle. The recording industry must adapt, or perish. Our purchases are a privilege they must earn, not a debt we owe!

        • Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ceejayoz ( 567949 ) <cj@ceejayoz.com> on Saturday August 09, 2003 @07:36AM (#6653796) Homepage Journal
          Take their money away by boycotting them, and they will be forced to stop.

          Oh, yes, because you're gonna get every one of the hundred million teeny boppers who buy RIAA-supported labels to boycott.

          RIAA's never gonna get hurt by a boycott.

          Our purchases are a privilege they must earn, not a debt we owe!

          You may not owe them purchases, but they don't owe you free music if you choose not to purchase. If you don't want to pay for music, fine - but don't claim that gives you a right to get it for free.
          • The radio is free for the listening, and online file trading is the new radio. As for the teenyboppers, they could easily be driven to the counterfeit disc vendors at flea markets and street corners if the the discs at the mall won't play in a computer, but the pirated ones will. The RIAA needs to decide which side of the digital revolution to be on. Right now, they are on the heads in the basket side.
            • Radio quality is between 30 and 50 kbps, whereas files downloaded over P2P networks can be anywhere from 128 kbps to full CD quality. Radio stations also pay a license fee to play songs, whereas P2P networks do not. The two are not at all comparable.

              If people shift to counterfeit disc vendors (which I've not seen a single one of in my life in this country), that doesn't make it right or legal. Not only that, but the increase would paint one huge bullseye on those vendors, just like Napster painted one o

              • Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:4, Informative)

                by macdaddy357 ( 582412 ) <macdaddy357@hotmail.com> on Saturday August 09, 2003 @12:18PM (#6654902)
                The few cents in licencing radio stations pay out per song are peanuts compared the the millions per year they recieve in payola [dontbuycds.org] before they will play a song. Besides, end users do not have to pay these fees anyway.

                I don't endorse counterfeit discs, but a kid who has five dollars to spend on music, not 20 is going to buy them, won't give a rat's ass whether it is legal, and won't percieve himself as doing anything wrong. The major labels have a dying business model, just as the horse and buggy industry did once the automobile was invented. The labels must accept the digital revolution, or their place in the dustbin of history.

            • The radio is free for the listening, and online file trading is the new radio.
              That's a silly comparison.
              Listening to the radio is a passive activity. Online file trading (copying) isn't. Yes the music played on the radio is free, but it's just a promotion/teaser. With radio, you can't listen to a particular song ANY TIME YOU WANT TO. They want you hear the song, like it, and then go BUY the CD!
            • The radio is free for the listening,

              Only because somebody else is paying for the music you listen, in hopes of getting you to listen to their advertisments also.

              And everybody pays for that music inderectly (in prices of the advertised products). So it's far from free.

              Online, it's harder to get people to pay for advertisements (and then of course there are all the too-easy-to-pirate issues etc). And indeed most of us just hate online advertising! The price to pay for this is that we must then pay f

    • Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pr0c ( 604875 ) *
      Not true, if 1 court is sympathetic to the RIAA and they get all their subpoenas through that court...

      This way there will be some courts (like this one) that will reject their subpoenas. It could snowball against them this way.

    • Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:5, Insightful)

      by evilWurst ( 96042 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @09:25PM (#6651895) Journal
      While it's not a complete or assured victory, it's very significant.

      1) the RIAA can't choose it's favorite legal district anymore. They can't buy influence in one state and then apply that to the entire country.

      2) the RIAA can't inconvenience its victims (as much) - forcing the victims to travel across the country is an unfair hardship when _proper_ procedure is to sue in the district in which the alleged violation was committed.

      2b) the now-lessened hardship of fighting the RIAA means the RIAA is less able to use the threat of a lawsuit to extort a settlement out of its accused.

      3) the effort the RIAA is now required to exert to sue is now more equal to the effort the accused must exert to defend.

      The RIAA being allowed to cheaply sue anyone in the place of their choosing was an asymmetrical attack, an unjust abuse of the spirit of our legal system. It allowed them to arbitrarily punish at will.

      The article didn't mention the RIAA's ability to issue subpoenas without a judge's consent, but I hope that's been challenged too, as it is also an abuse of the system.

      • Re:NOT a privacy victory (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Piquan ( 49943 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @09:44PM (#6652021)

        1) the RIAA can't choose it's favorite legal district anymore. They can't buy influence in one state and then apply that to the entire country.

        I'm not convinced that it won't continue to use its improper practices, and just hope that most people are too ignorant of the law to dispute it. That seems to be the most common play for this sort.

        Which means that maybe this article should have been on the front page.

    • Victory is often an elusive thing in an ongoing conflict. On the other hand, historically wars of attrition are very seldom won by large, more powerful entities. The RIAA will not win this war of attrition, and every victory which goes to their opposition, no matter how vague, or seemingly minor, is a victory which brings the end closer.

  • Spin? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Andy Smith ( 55346 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @07:38PM (#6651200)
    Forcing the RIAA to have their subpoenas issued from the local court rather than Washington a) is legally correct
    What a curious statement of "fact", if that's what it's intended to be. The implication is that issuing them without going through a local court is legally incorrect, which is an interesting take on things, ie: wrong.

    I'm not arguing that the DMCA is a Good or Bad Thing, but it is law and it allows copyright holders to issue subpoenas without going through a court. Verizon was the test case and the RIAA won, hence there's a precedent ruling that their behaviour is "legally correct".

    • Re:Spin? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Piquan ( 49943 )

      I'm not arguing that the DMCA is a Good or Bad Thing, but it is law and it allows copyright holders to issue subpoenas without going through a court. Verizon was the test case and the RIAA won, hence there's a precedent ruling that their behaviour is "legally correct".

      The way I understand it, the DMCA allows copyright holders to issue subpoenas without going through a judge. They still have to go through a court.

      This just clarified which court they had to go through.

  • The RIAA is nothing more than a bunch of leeches trying to shut down freedoms of people, using tactics similar to the railway tycoons of the olden days. If the music and movie industry wasn't so corrupt to begin with (ala $5/popcorn), they likely wouldn't see all their wealth circling the drain.

    These industries are collectively nothing more than robber barrons of yore. What they need to do is pay actors a living wage, and that's it. Drop the profits and lower ticket prices. Drop the CD prices.

    John Stuart
    • These industries are collectively nothing more than robber barrons of yore. What they need to do is pay actors a living wage, and that's it. Drop the profits and lower ticket prices. Drop the CD prices.

      What's wrong with capitalism? If you don't like the price of popcorn, don't buy it. If you can't afford the cost of a CD, spend your money someplace else. Why shouldn't actor's be paid $25 million a money if they can get it?

      -Brent

      • What's wrong with capitalism, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Cecil ( 37810 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @08:30PM (#6651573) Homepage
        What's wrong with capitalism? Well, plenty, but that doesn't mean it's a decently good system.

        However, it is not a magic bullet. It has weaknesses. So we've come up with laws to cover most of them: fraud, theft, intellectual property, collusion, illegal monopolies. All these things are products of our capitalist economy.

        In my humble opinion, the RIAA and MPAA seem to have discovered some loophole between 'collusion' and 'illegal monopoly' by alternately shifting blame between the member companies and the associations themselves.

        Capitalism is a system, and like any system can be abused. Whenever we stop one type of abuse, someone will discover another. This is what 'trade group associations' are doing, in my opinion. Illegal monopolies and collusion are both harmful to the free market, so there are laws against both. I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest that the MPAA and RIAA's obscene lobbying power is also detrimental to the free market.

        Unfortunately, they are quite capable of using their obscene lobbying power to protect themselves from such accusations (at least at a governmental level). And it'll take a hell of a lot more than a bunch of people pissing and moaning on Slashdot to get anything to happen about it. As usual, the EFF [eff.org] has the right idea, but they don't have even a tiny fraction of the power of the RIAA, MPAA, or any other major lobbying group (Liquor, Tobacco, Auto manufacturers, etc). Money is power in a capitalist country.

        Just my random thoughts. And yes, I am a bleeding heart liberal, thanks.

        • Re:What's wrong with capitalism, eh? (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          That was a nice little rant about free markets, but what does it have to do with copyrights? Copyrights are a government granted monopoly. In a free market, they would not exist. In a free market, I would be able to make my own Star Wars movie (either by copying the original, or hiring actors to recreate the movie) and sell it at any price I want.

          The key to a successful free market is competition. Copyright outlaws competition. It is like prohibiting me from taking the seed from an apple and growing

      • Well what is wrong with *YOU*?

        Capitalism is FREE MARKET. That means that I should have the choice of going to a movie theater where the popcorn costs less. Is there one? No.

        Collusion, monopoly, irresposible greed (ala enron) and others come to my mind when you ask "what is wrong with capitalism". And this even without touching the issue of "capitalism is the best system"...
        • Capitalism is FREE MARKET. That means that I should have the choice of going to a movie theater where the popcorn costs less. Is there one? No.

          No, that's not what capitalism means. Capitalism means, for one thing, that the moview theater can't take $1 from 5 people who don't get popcorn to give to you for $1 intead of $5.

          It also doesn't mean that you get to pay what you want for something. It means that the seller and the buyer meet at a point where a transaction takes place. So if that point is $5 f

          • Systems aren't defined by what they're *not* which is exactly what you are doing here.

            Capitalism is not the lack of communism, as you seem to infer here, according to dictionary.com it's "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

            And also, according to investorwords.com, capitalism is where "free market forces determine the prices of goods
            • >If I had my choice of economic system, I'd >choose socialism; at least we wouldn't be >killing people and the earth trying to cut costs. Ex-communist countries have the worst pollution on earth.
              • As I said, socialism != communism...

                Communism is state-run everything, whereas socialism advocates shared production (ie. NOT state run)

                The pollution in ex-communist countries is due mainly to the state's greed under a dictator, and also Western countries' refusal to share technology that would help the situation. A socialist system wouldn't have this problem because workers would be working for the community, and not for profit.

                Of course, since we have greed culturally ingrained it would take a lot to
          • No, that's not what capitalism means. Capitalism means, for one thing, that the moview theater can't take $1 from 5 people who don't get popcorn to give to you for $1 intead of $5.

            You are trying to tell me that about 4oz of corn, the butter (imitation with the super special artery clogger) and the 5c worth of electricity (to pop it) somehow adds up to be more than 25c? Are you sane?

            If the popcorn is $5 at all of the places, it means only either collusion or monopoly. Take your pick...

            Of course this woul
            • It means someone (a lot of someones, in fact) will pay $5 for popcorn. There isn't a monopoly and there is no need for collusion. People are simply insane enough to pay that price....
            • If the popcorn is $5 at all of the places, it means only either collusion or monopoly. Take your pick...

              If someone is willing to pay $5 for a bucket of popcorn, it is going to be $5 everywhere because every movie theater is going to want to make the most profit they can.

              -Brent
              • OK, I get your point, mine is that some movie theaters it should be $3, other $4 and yet other $5.50. This is clearly not the case...

                Don't tell me that $5 is some kind of magic number and people would not be buying %5.50 or $6 popcorn in other theaters...
                • You're obviously exaggerating. While anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much, I've seen popcorn for 2 dollars, all the way up to 6.50. 5 isn't the magic number, it is just a nice round one.

                  By that same token, I've noticed some theaters charge 5.50 for tickets, and some up to 9.50... yet the ones with the higher ticket prices also charge the most for popcorn.

            • I work at a movie theater. We're getting killed because we sell our popcorn for $1. Why? Because concessions are the only place that any movie theater in the world makes any money. The studios take some obscene percentage of the ticket price (around 80% for new releases I think?), and so theaters have to sell you that popcorn for $5 to stay afloat. Sad, but true :-\

      • What's wrong with capitalism? If you don't like the price of popcorn, don't buy it. If you can't afford the cost of a CD, spend your money someplace else.

        First, you're confusing capitalism (a system based on control of capital resources by a minority of government-backed "owners") with the free market (a method of determining what good and services should be provided).

        Second, a system of state-created monopolies on making copies isn't a free market. Especially when that system goes far beyond it's Con

    • All of that $5 popcorn goes to the theater that you watch your movie at. The reason for this is that only 20% of the ticket price goes to the theater. If a ticket is $8-$10 the theater is only receiving $1.60 to $2 while the cost to show that movie is lets say, $2000 (rent, labor, licensing, insurance, etc) per showing but at each showing only 70 people buy a ticket then the theater actually loses money!!

      So how do they stay in business? Simple, that $5 bucket of popcorn and a long running movie. All o

  • Finally (Score:5, Funny)

    by rmohr02 ( 208447 ) <mohr.42@osu. e d u> on Friday August 08, 2003 @07:49PM (#6651276)
    Finally a Judge who understands the law, and is willing to stand up to the RIAA. Of course, they'll sue him next.

  • Deceptive headline (Score:5, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @08:26PM (#6651546) Homepage Journal
    You guys should have seen the victory dance I was choreographing in between reading the headline and the content.
    • "You guys should have seen the victory dance I was choreographing in between reading the headline and the content."

      I was walking past his cube when this happened. He's not in danger of switching careers any time soon.
    • It's a Friday night, we're all reading slashdot...

      I really don't think I would have wanted to see that dance, come to think of it....

  • Not a local Judge (Score:5, Informative)

    by bmasel ( 129946 ) <bmasel@tds.REDHATnet minus distro> on Friday August 08, 2003 @08:48PM (#6651674) Journal
    Judge Tauro sits on the US District Court for Massachusets, which is not the same thing as a "Massachusets Court."

    If his ruling holds, the RIAA would have to act thru the hundred odd US District courts, not quite the same burden as applying in every local court.

  • Federal court? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Friday August 08, 2003 @09:23PM (#6651880) Homepage
    Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be technically a federal subpeona (I assume there is such a thing) since it involves multiple states and interstate operations (i.e. the internet)? With the DMCA being a federal law, and the internet being country-wide (well, world-wide really) why would the subpoena not come from a federal court instead of a locality?
  • By not going thru washington, and going thru a local court, its not as easy to get the U.S. Citizen vs. citizen of the united states of america argument. its still possible, but harder.
    if it comes from washington, and you claim your citizenship (IE citizen of the united states of america not US Citizen) then washington cant do a damn thing to you.

    • By not going thru washington, and going thru a local court, its not as easy to get the U.S. Citizen vs. citizen of the united states of america argument. its still possible, but harder.
      if it comes from washington, and you claim your citizenship (IE citizen of the united states of america not US Citizen) then washington cant do a damn thing to you.

      I don't follow your argument at all, but I'll try and address the issue I think you're talking about...

      Federal courts exist under the jurisdiction granted them

    • If I'm understanding you correctly, the distinction you're trying to make is the one used by the tax scams which claim that you don't have to pay federal tax. There's no real basis for it in law, afaik.

      The laws about where the federal government has jurisdiction, vs. state governments, are fairly clear. And despite whatever crackpot interpretation people can come up with, if you can't make it work in court (which no-one has), it's meaningless, and could actually be harmful to the individual trying to us

      • Ok, here is how it works.
        Read very closly, and ask a lawyer or paralegal if you feel like it.
        If you claim that you are a "citizen of the united states of america" that takes you SO Far out of federal law its not funny. If you claim you are a
        "U.S. Citizen" Then you are telling the government you are one of theirs, a citizen of the government directly. (DC, Guam, virigin islands, america samoa)
        I have a reply back from Barbara B. Kennelly, member of congress, that states there IS a difference between the 2 cit

  • Here's an Idea... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Friday August 08, 2003 @11:58PM (#6652677)
    If the DMCA allows a subpoena to be send without a court order, then lets set up the filesharing software to track RIAA transactions so that we can issue a subpoena to them each time they sniff around on our shared directories. Turn it around and bury them in a legal morass.

    • Re:Here's an Idea... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by oni ( 41625 )
      which part of "shared directories" do you not understand?

      You want to hurt the RIAA? You want to "turn it around" on them? Me too. Here's an idea: download iRATE Radio (it's on sourceforge. I'm not going to link it for you). Use the program to build a collection of free and legal mp3s. Go through the trouble of appending words like " - similar to artist XYZ" to the end of the mp3 filenames. Then share this stuff through kazaa. That way, you'll turn a few clueless people on to indie bands.

      oh, and don
  • Bitch Slap those assholes from the RIAA!!!

  • The legal details, for those interested (Score:5, Informative)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Saturday August 09, 2003 @04:34AM (#6653448) Homepage
    Judge's order to quash [eff.org]
    Short and to the point. A single sentence:

    The court hereby orders that: 1. Because Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2) and (b)(2) do not permit a subpoena for production issued in Washington, D.C., to be validly served in Massachusetts, Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order [#1] is ALLOWED.

    So I went and located Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2) and (b)(2). [cornell.edu]

    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
    Rule 45. Subpoena
    (a) Form; Issuance.
    (2) A subpoena commanding attendance at a trial or hearing shall issue from the court for the district in which the hearing or trial is to be held. A subpoena for attendance at a deposition shall issue from the court for the district designated by the notice of deposition as the district in which the deposition is to be taken. If separate from a subpoena commanding the attendance of a person, a subpoena for production or inspection shall issue from the court for the district in which the production or inspection is to be made.

    (b) Service.
    (2) Subject to the provisions of clause (ii) of subparagraph (c)(3)(A) of this rule, a subpoena may be served at any place within the district of the court by which it is issued, or at any place without the district that is within 100 miles of the place of the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection specified in the subpoena or at any place within the state where a state statute or rule of court permits service of a subpoena issued by a state court of general jurisdiction sitting in the place of the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection specified in the subpoena. When a statute of the United States provides therefor, the court upon proper application and cause shown may authorize the service of a subpoena at any other place. A subpoena directed to a witness in a foreign country who is a national or resident of the United States shall issue under the circumstances and in the manner and be served as provided in Title 28, U.S.C. 1783.

    45(a)(2) Says that the subpoenas should never have been issued. The Washington D.C. court screwed up in signing them.

    45(b)(2) Says that even if the they were valid they cann't be legally served. As far as the law is concerned they may as well be printed in invisible ink. Legally you haven't seen it and don't have to comply.

    That is federal law governing the subpoena process. It applies to ALL of the RIAA's subpoenas. That means that every single one of the RIAA's subpoenas are INVALID unless they happen to be directed at an ISP in the Washington D.C. area.

    -
    • You mean like AOL?

      Domain Name: AOL.COM

      Registrant:
      America Online, Inc.
      22000 AOL Way
      Dulles, VA 20166
      US

      Created on..............: Jun 22 1995 12:00AM
      Expires on..............: Nov 23 2003 7:02AM
      Record Last Updated on..: Aug 1 2003 1:14PM
      Registrar...............: America Online, Inc.
      http://whois.registrar.aol.com/whois/

      Administrative, Technical Contact:
      AOL Domain Administration (America Online, Inc.)
      22000 AOL Way
      Dulles

  • Opinions versus reactions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sutekh-Acolyte ( 695745 ) on Saturday August 09, 2003 @12:36PM (#6654995) Journal
    Beware... this may get off topic.

    It's interesting to see how many people vehemently oppose the RIAA; of course, as a sane individual, I'm one of them.

    At the same time, I'm not surprised that a greater amount of reaction hasn't been taken against the RIAA's abuses of the United States' legal system and its obvious government manipulation through corporate power.

    Historically, humans are much more likely to take action when they oppose something that legally allows others to do something they don't like, as compared to when they support something (human rights, for example) being challenged or when they are merely indirectly affected by it. This is how ultraconservative legislation (for example) is often passed, when a minority supports it rather than the majority: Most individuals against the legislation quietly oppose the issue, without taking action. A very small minority will work intensely and consistently to get its way, and they usually succeed. This is compared to the opposition, which takes action in small amounts that aren't usually consistent (like opposition that fizzles out after a large protest), and the opposition tends to be less "fire-breathing" as the other side.

    Good examples of this are Minnesota's state legislature revoking domestic partner benefits for state employees due to a budget crisis and the influence of fundamentalists, and perhaps (please don't flame) the questionable recent war in the Middle East. (Disregarding whatever figures CNN or FoxNews may spout, I happen to be among those who doubt the majority in the United States actually supported the war. Ever.)

    (You know, the one for oil? Oops... I mean, the one to hoist an unfriendly regime? Oops... I mean, the war to free innocent people from corruption, torture, and terror by murdering them and continuing to cause instability and terror?)

    Back on track... the lack of reaction taken against the RIAA is disappointing but not odd, especially with the obvious issue that filesharing copyrighted material is illegal. But this isn't about copyright infringement, it's about the RIAA exploiting its resources while people just kind of let it slide by and wait to see what happens. Great thanks to the EFF for doing something constructive about it.

    It seems that, for the most part, the only other people speaking out and taking some action (however small) are the people who've been sued. That is not to forget the generous people who have donated to pay the enormous charges against RIAA victims.

    Finally, I must confess that I personally have taken no real action to fight the RIAA, though I should.
    • I never believed the war on Iraq was for oil. After a bit of research, I have come to believe it was for the survival of the US as an economic superpower. Read on just a little bit more; there's a point to this.

      The US is dependent on currency reserves. Other countries' currency reserves, to be precise. Most of the national deficit is financed by the US selling dollars. Dollars that go into other currency reserves, as the dollar is considered the most credible (and economically stable) currency in the world

  • music cd rentals? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Am I missing something or does everybody have the ability to rent video games and movies...or is this not a reality? Seems to me that if i can have entertainment for a couple days for $3 a movie or less than why would i ever want to buy a $15 music cd? We should be able to rent the latest cd's from video stores and anything ancient, out of print or 10 years or older should be available in the public library. At least the companies would have to make quality product on a regular basis and kids would have a b

    • 17 USC 109 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by yerricde ( 125198 ) on Sunday August 10, 2003 @02:52PM (#6660513) Homepage Journal

      We should be able to rent the latest cd's from video stores and anything ancient, out of print or 10 years or older should be available in the public library.

      In 1984, the U.S. Congress banned the "rental, lease, or lending" of phonorecords without the express consent of both the recording artists' record labels and the songwriters' music publishers. Find the details in 17 USC 109(b) [cornell.edu].

    • My library (in the midwest) loans out music cds. I just looked up and found 7 Eminem titles that I could check out...

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Close