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.
hee hee (Score:5, Funny)
[...] rejecting the trade group's claims that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.
Well, it appears the RIAA will have to focus on a different network layer: they'll start suing the cat-5 and fiber optic manufacturers..
Re:hee hee (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not go to the source--DARPA? They started this damned Internet thing in the first place. Let the federal government deal with these RIAA arseholes...that would be sweet justice, because the feds are the enablers (via DMCA and other stupid laws) of the RIAA anyway.
Re:hee hee (Score:4, Informative)
not that Al Gore created the Internet so lay off please!
Re:hee hee (Score:5, Funny)
Divine Litigation (Score:5, Funny)
Suing fiber optic manufacturers misses the point.
What does fiber optic cable transmit? Light. And who is responsible for light?
"And God said, Let there be light; and there was light (Genesis 1:3)."
-kgj
Re:Divine Litigation (Score:5, Funny)
That would create a nice international incident.
Re:Divine Litigation (Score:4, Funny)
Oh really? And just what lawyer is going to agree to die in order to serve papers in the right jurisdiction? Oh wait... how would a lawyer even get to the right jurisdiction if they did die? ;-)
Re:Divine Litigation (Score:5, Funny)
Forces of Light and Darkness (Score:5, Funny)
It's worse that that. This so-called "laser" is also used to burn stolen data onto CD-R discs
-kgj
Well (Score:5, Interesting)
The court also said the following:
The appeals judges said they sympathized with the recording industry, noting that "stakes are large." But the judges said it was not the role of courts to rewrite the 1998 copyright law, "no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software industries."
In other words, this was a technical ruling.
The difference with Slashdot between other media outlets is that Slashdot doesn't dare mention the damage to the music industry. It's all a "culture movement," or something.
I used to disagree with the RIAA's tactics, but when I think about this situation, I really do have to wonder. There are people illegally trading music files. The RIAA wanted to get their names in order to prosecute them individually (which is what Slashdotters used to say they should do back when they were suing Napster). What was wrong with the RIAA going after people infringing on their copyrights again? What do I lose from them doing that? Nobody has ever offered an actual, cohesive argument. It seems like no matter what they do, Slashdotters are against them preventing piracy of their works.
I notice people here seem to be against software piracy. Movie piracy is about 50/50. Music piracy is maybe 90/10. Why? Convenience? I don't get it. It's wrong no matter the files being traded. You didn't pay to get the music. Nobody seems to care that some human beings paid for a studio and recorded the music for a record label that distributed it for them. Instead, it's, "Down with RIAA!"
I just don't get the revolution, I guess.
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:Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Blatantly copied from one of my previous [slashdot.org] comments, but it's certainly relevant to this discussion.
Quote me:
If you really want to see how the artist is deprived of money, you should check into how much the record industry takes (as a matter of general practice) out of the artist's cut of album sales to cover the cost of broken records using a model which was created when vinyl records were sold. Nevermind the fact that the percentage of CDs broken during shipping is a mere fraction of the number of vinyl records that were broken; they're taking the same cut. Or perhaps you could look at how the industry manipulates artists' contracts using high-powered lawyers to ensure that artists are locked into a single company for eternity without even the option of going out on their own. When an artist is contracted to produce 5 albums, the recording company will often ignore albums that don't sell well, keeping the artist locked into a perpetual contract that actually hinders their ability to create new content. The record company makes a bunch of money from the first album, but gives the artist next to nothing from it, citing "recording, studio, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, promotional costs, etc", then shelves the next 5 or 6 albums when it becomes clear they're not selling as well as the first, but then tells the artist that they've only created one album. And don't go thinking that this only happens rarely, or to small artists. The Dixie Chicks just recently had to sue their label to get more than $4million that was owed to them. If memory serves, they recorded an album that went platinum, for which their label refused to pay them. Talk about real theft.
The "I'm just demoing it" argument has always been a bit weak, though not entirely inaccurate. While there are some folks who really do buy more music when they download, I'm certain that, at least a majority, do not. That being said, I think the real problem is that when people look at a CD, they're thinking less about an artist making it, and more about a multi-national conglomerate mega-corp that produced it and is trying to sell it to them at extremely inflated prices. My personal argument in this whole thing is that I will not put my money into the hands of corrupt organizations that should have been broken up decades ago, with their top brass jailed on RICO violations. They've now grown so bold as to demand to be exempt from all anti-trust lawsuits. This is like the mafia demanding to be exempt from murder prosecutions. I suppose the logic is, "we've been breaking these laws for so long, why don't you just stop bugging us about it?". I do buy CDs, T-shirts, concert tickets, etc from non-RIAA affiliated bands that I like. That is how I show my support. If Metallica wants another dollar from me (I've bought their stuff in the past), they'd best get away from their RIAA whore of a label and stop treating their fans like garbage. I absolutely support the rights of artists and others to make a profit from their intellectual property. What I do not support in any way are corrupt organizations (as defined under US Federal RICO statutes). I will not pay them money, and I will not support them in any way, shape, or form. I believe my argument holds very good water, as the evidence against the major music companies is plain and out in the open. Over the past 50 some-odd years, the entertainment industry has conspired to violate the laws of this country, the sanctity of the American judicial and legislative branchs, and the trust of the American public. This is not to say that they behave better in other places, I just don't have the background information to accuse them of wrongdoing in, say, France that I do for the US.
And from another [slashdot.org] brilliant comment of mine:
I find it amus
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:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some music peices which are really part of a whole.
Examples that come to mind are Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, Kraftert's Man Machine or others.
An artist sometimes puts an albumn together not JUST to fill up a record or CDs worth of music but as a single thing. When you say you want to rip one part of it out, I think you're doing a disservice to the artist.
The issue for me is about control and morals. The moral issue is that of cultural exchange- and that's what music, books and movies are. The issue of control is the issue of 'to what length will these companies to go keep control over consumers'.
- Serge
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: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:5, Funny)
I can beat that. I once bought a single I didn't like.
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, Informative)
No, I think a technical ruling would involve phrases such as "copyright infringement".
Much different than stealing.
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.
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.)
Re:I can't speak for everyone here (Score:5, Interesting)
I think $750 per song for someone not making a profit (what bootleggers truly are) is obscene. My fine could fund the whole Iraqi war. They hold that in front of you to force a settlement. That's harrassment, barratry, and inhumane.
The RIAA has used the money it has ripped off the artists for 70 years to buy more legislation so that it can act as the corporate police. It's time the government goes back to racial profiling or something it's good at, instead of propping up a monopoly that isn't needed for the good of the country.
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
If the music industry wouldn't sell music for an artificially high price, a lot less people would care to pirate music. Further, a ridicously small part is going to people involved in actually producing that product, most goes into the various instances providing infrastructure for selling that music - the record labels, shops etc. Inform yourself about what young artists get for their first record.
Fact is, music labels as we know them are made redundant by the internet+compression technologies, and that is the real fight they are in. Without the need for an complex and expensive infrastructure, there's suddenly a very low barrier of entry to the market, and this is why the RIAA likes "trusted computing", bdcause they hope this will carry over a higher barrier of entry into the computing age.
A (crude) analogy to that would be if somehow there would have been a influential horse coaches industries when the car was invented. They would also have done anything in their power to prevent this new technology from making them obsolete.
Ask yourself this question:
Why does the record industry not simply put up all their music as mp3s into giant web shops and use their save in infrastructure costs to offer music significantly cheaper? So cheap that many more people would simply buy instead of pirating.
Do you really think this would make getting mp3z easier than it is now?
No, but this would open the door for everyone to enter this market, preventing the record industry from getting their ridicolous margins by demonopolizing the market.
Something similar can be seen with razor blades, I think read somewhere that razor blades are one of the most stolen items in shops. Why? Because nobody in his right mind believes that the price at which they sell is justified.
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.
There's a CNN story about this too (Score:5, Informative)
According to this CNN story [cnn.com] posted a few minutes back, a U.S. appeals court says that the RIAA's methods for tracking down those who copy its music over the Internet are not authorized by law. "The 1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit". Note that Verizon suffered setbacks earlier in it's case against the RIAA as reported here [slashdot.org]
Go Judiciary! Wooooo! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Go Judiciary! Wooooo! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No Judiciary! No! Bad Judiciary!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Lies, damn lies... (Score:5, Informative)
And statisticts! Woo!
Your big, stinking lie was to omit the fact that 3/4 is the rate of overturning for all circuits, not just the 9th. So your 3/4th statistic is meaningless, and your implication that they make bad decisions due to liberal stacking is baseless.
Here's a [centerfori...reedom.org]
site that is clearly not a fan of the 9th Circuit court. According to their data, the 9th Circuit has had 18 of 24 cases overturned, or 75%. The rest of the circuits had a total of 41 of 56 cases overturned, or 73.2%. That's an average. Some circuits have an overturn rate of 100%.
Have a nice day.
Re:Lies, damn lies... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lies, damn lies... (Score:4, Informative)
Getting on...
The first paragraph you quote has merit. However, I should point out that the Supreme Court does not choose to review cases based upon the fact that they are bad or likely to be overturned. Cases appear before them because the case is appealed, and they choose to hear the case typically because the case involves aspects of Constitutional law or conflicts between circuits. So the fact that more of the 9th Circuit's cases are seen by the Supreme Court could be for any number of reasons completely unrelated to your thesis.
The second paragraph you quote is nothing but speculation, though there is probably some truth to it. I wasn't drawing any conclusions from it myself, just further pointing out that the conclusion you wished people to draw from your seemingly high 75% reversal figure was not supported at all.
I did digest what I read. I didn't include figures that weren't relevent to proving/disproving your thesis and pointing out your lie. If you want to bring those points up, fine, but don't call me a liar for not doing it myself, liar.
I hope your day was nice.
Re:No Judiciary! No! Bad Judiciary!! (Score:4, Informative)
Then perhaps it would be interesting to read the closing statement of the court's judgement in the case which this story is about.
From The Register: [theregister.co.uk]
"It is not the province of the courts, however, to rewrite the DMCA in order to make it fit a new and unforseen internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software industries. The plight of copyrightholders must be addressed in the first instance by the Congress; only the Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new technology."
Re:No Judiciary! No! Bad Judiciary!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: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 m
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:3, Interesting)
Already certain companies give benefits to life partners and are in theory vulnerable to the scenario above. Allowing gays to marry would remove that "loophole" and would put gays and straights on equal footing. (that is, marriages of convenience could occur but there is a clear legal process instead of this hazy "life partner" designation)
Re:Have a reality check (Score:3, Offtopic)
Congratulations: you're clueless.
That happens now. It's called a "marriage of convenience". Maybe we should mandate that people can only get married if they "love" each other, hmmm? Maybe you'd like to build the "love" detector to enforce this? Get the fuck out with this "life partners" bullshit. Either everyone has a right to marry, or nobody does OR marriage is for love / godliness / what-the-fuck-ever only and NOBODY gets any special secular benefits like lower insurance, healthcare, etc.
I know you
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.
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:There's a CNN story about this too (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:There's a CNN story about this too (Score:5, Funny)
The A.P. is reporting a record number of users on all p2p networks. Kazaa's userbase shoots up to over 5 million.
.
Two comments: (Score:5, Informative)
First, this is good news but not great. The RIAA can't get subpoenas under these circumstances, but the court did not rule that provision of the DMCA unconstitutional, so the door is not completely shut.
Second, before you ask, this only covers one federal circuit (& the smallest one at that), not the entire nation, but in intellectual property matters what the DC Circuit says usually goes.
You're thinking in 1975 terms. (Score:5, Funny)
You must have been thinking of the real world... which is weird, because this is Slashdot.
Re:You're thinking in 1975 terms. (Score:5, Funny)
No a/s/l check? No, this is no AOLer. Besides... if you think a hardcore AOLer could figure out how to get to "h t t p colon slash slash slash dot dot org " without a big funny button to push, you're kidding yourself.
(I would like to apologize to all the AOLers out there who may have been offended by my insensitive comment: I truly am sorry that you choose to use AOL.)
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?
I love the smell of Irony in the morning! (Score:5, Interesting)
No, but it did say (in effect) that the DMCA protects the ISPs, because the ISPs aren't hosting the files.
Imagine that! The DMCA, lobbied for by the RIAA is coming around to bite them in the ass!
Gotta love the irony!
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.
Good News! but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good News! but... (Score:3, Informative)
Great, but (Score:5, Interesting)
So what does this mean (Score:3, Interesting)
Some more info... (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly, this is the exact same appeals court that overturned the decision against Microsoft. It's good to know that there are cool, compassionate people in charge of the courts who don't listen to which way the prevailing "geek winds" are blowing on e issue or another but instead disspassionately apply the law. It appears that in their mind, the RIAA is as mistaken as Microsoft was innocent.
Re:Some more info... (Score:5, Interesting)
not quite (Score:5, Informative)
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 reas
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)
Phew! (Score:5, Funny)
Excellent! Now I can breathe a sigh of relief, knowing my obsession with Clay Aiken will remain a secret.
Oops.
Phew (Score:5, Funny)
Another story in the Detroit Free Press... (Score:4, Informative)
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,
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!
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Funny)
This just screams out for a reference to Alice's DMCA [sethf.com]...
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)
A good week for justice (Score:3, Interesting)
If anyone wants an MP3 of the ruling... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If anyone wants an MP3 of the ruling... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
I Nominate Cary Sherman... (Score:5, Funny)
Cary Sherman, president of the recording industry group, said the ruling "unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation."
"Offer the opportunity to settle"...Kinda like offering an olive branch made of pointy steel leaves and covered with anthrax. Now that's a classic worth framing!
GTRacer
127.0.0.1
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.
Full text of the ruling (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting that Verizon won more or less on a single point. ISPs who discover that people are storing pirated content on their (the ISP's) servers can avoid getting in trouble by "respond[ing] expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing." That part of the law hasn't changed.
However, Verizon successfully argued that the responsibility to "remove or disable access to the material" does not apply to ISPs that do not store the data, but instead act as mere conduits through which the pirated files travel. And that's exactly what's going on in the case of P2P file sharing - the illegal file is stored on the pirate's computer, not the ISP's servers.
Verizon argued that under the DMCA, in order for a subpoena to be valid, it has to contain information about infringing material "to be removed or access to which is to be disabled". Verizon argued that it can't remove the material or disable access to it. And since that requirement for issuing a subpoena cannot be met, the subpoena process does not apply to Verizon. The court agreed.
The RIAA unsucessfully argued that Verizon could remove access to the infringing material by simply cutting off access to the pirate, but the judge disagreed that that's what the DMCA was talking about when it uses the phrase "diable access".
From the ruling...
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.
The ruling concludes with some sympathy by the judges for what the RIAA is trying to do, but a refusal to extend the DMCA to technology like P2P that didn't even exist when the DMCA was written. The court said that if the RIAA wants to subpoena ISPs for information about P2P file traders, it will need to get that additional authority from Congress. A good demonstration of judicial restraint, IMHO.
SBC Venue Change (Score:3, Insightful)
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
I like how the MPAA handles this better than RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, the MPAA is just as zealous over IP as the RIAA, but I saw one of those ads before the trailers when I went to see Matrix III.
You know, the advertisements where they get a camera guy that is in an equipment storage shed talking about how pirating hurts the little guy.
Well, damn, I just felt so horrible after the ad was done that I promised myself I wouldn't pirate Matrix III. Then I saw how horrible it was over the next 2 hours and realized something huge:
The movies that I *don't* want to pirate always end up being pure crap. And the movies that I *do* pirate end up being the ones I later buy on DVD when they come out.
Disney's Pirates ... is a great example of this. "The Ring", "Frailty", "Final Destination 1 & 2", and "Signs" are others.
In fact, looking through my DVD library I'm realizing that there are several movies that I just flat out would have never have bought on DVD had I not seen them online. And I certainly wouldn't have seen them in the overpriced and crowded theatres.
So how many people are like me? And what happens to their profits when we *QUIT* catching these hidden gems online?
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?
In related news. (Score:5, Informative)
The Dutch [groggy.de] make up about 20% of the world's filesharing individuals, according to the article.
ISP's can VOLUNTARILY give out the info (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a mere technicality (Score:4, Interesting)
The intent of the DMCA's notifcation mechanism, is that the ISP either has to take responsibility for the packets they are transmitting to the rest of the world, or pass the buck to whoever is responsible. In light of that, this ruling appears to subvert the intent of the law.
The issue shouldn't be about who owns a piece of equipment; it should be about who is responsible for that equipment's behavior. DMCA was intended to identify who is responsible for copyright infringement in cases where there is a "common carrier" in the mix. Treating P2P differently than hosting, doesn't make any sense.
This is a victory only by a perverted technicality, using a loophole. It does not mean that the courts have taken pirates' side. If this ruling stands, then the people who passed DMCA are just going to ammend and "clarify" the law.
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:The Law of Unintended Consequences.... (Score:4, Informative)
There are many good articles out there about Common Carrier [umich.edu] laws and regulations. I suggest you read them. I think this lawsuit will have minimal impact on ISP's common carrier status.
Internet service today, as far as I understand, is not a Common Carrier service by anyones definition. The government doesn't require anyone to provide Internet service at a fixed price. The government doesn't regulate Internet service (although, perhaps some of the underlying infrastructure). I don't think this relatively minor (in the context of common carrier status) point makes a difference.
That said, most ISP's want to act like common carriers. They usually want to sell to everyone at the published price, and want to carry all content without making editorial decisions. There are some (large) exceptions, but that's broadly true. Does that mean they should be regulated? Probably not. Common Carrier's history was to provide service to people private companies didn't want to service. Since ISP's seem to want to service everyone (within some limits) in a sense for now they can have the best of both worlds.
Of course, that could all change at any time.
Legalise P2P? (Score:4, Interesting)
A standarised fee added to your standard broadband fees, just like road tax in fuel prices. And legal access to all RIAA/MPAA copyrighted material. They are obligated to create a 100% valid, working copy of anything they release (may be allowed a week-two delay since shop appearance) in MP3/DIVX/whatever, and publish it on their official P2P server for everyone to download. And everyone who pays for network access, pays (proportionally to bandwidth) a little extra. Fees are collected through ISPs. And ISPs may provide "cheaper lines", P2P-free, for anyone not interested in P2P. The traffic on that networks monitored, or just P2P-specific services blocked on routers, so if you set up a dedicated webserver, you don't pay RIAA for its traffic.
DC Appeals Court Opinion (Score:4, Informative)
'Tis not good news. (Score:4, Insightful)
Silly legal arguments should be punished (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's going on? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What's going on? (Score:5, Funny)
Move along... nothing to see here.
Re:What's going on? (Score:5, Informative)
Settle down there fruit cake. A little backgound information for you. It was Bill Clinton that signed the DMCA into law. Yes I'm aware that it was passed by a Republic controlled House and Senate, but the buck stops with the president. Clinton had veto power, he could have stopped the bill from ever becoming law and he opted not to. Both Republicans and Democrats are respondible for the DCMA and for it's abuses. There are RIAA / MPAA / DCMA advocates on both sides of the isle (Frits Hollings springs to mind on the Democratic side). There are also those on both sides of the isle that oppose the abuses by the RIAA. Norm Coleman (Republican - MN) is having hearings in the Senate on the RIAA tatics.
The bottom line is that both sides are responsible for the DMCA. Peddle your bull shit somwhere else.
Re:Yeah, great news for the pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double Edged Sword (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:silly argument (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
It would appear the argument that the court found silly was, the "perceived" liability the ISP has with regards to music piracy because the pirated music is downloaded over their systems.
I can see how the Court would view this as silly. I would have ruled it as asinine, personally. Some of the counter arguments were (probably):
In all of these cases, unless you can prove the malice, I think the answer is a resounding NO! Why then should ISP's be responsible for the illegal acts of its subscribers, for which they (ISP) have no specific knowledge of even the occurence of such acts? They shouldn't be. If Verizon has reason to believe that you, the subscriber, are using their services to commit crimes; they will cancel your account and turn you over to the authorities. Verizon takes the position that its subscribers are law-abiding and then handles the exceptions. The RIAA would like the ISPs to take the position that all susbsribers are law-breakers, and need to prove otherwise. While this isn't exactly spelled out, it is a reasonable conclustion to draw.