RIAA Takes One In The Teeth
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Awww yeeeaahhhhh... did that hurt?</div> <a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5129687.html?tag=nefd_top' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5129687.ht...ml?tag=nefd_top</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Court: RIAA lawsuit strategy illegal
Last modified: December 19, 2003, 9:15 AM PST
By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
update A federal appeals court Friday handed a serious setback to the record industry's legal strategy of tracking down and suing alleged file swappers.
Overturning a series of decisions in favor of the Recording Industry Association of America, the Washington, D.C., court said copyright law did not allow the organization to issue subpoenas for the identity of file swappers on Internet service providers' networks.
"We are not unsympathetic either to the RIAA’s concern regarding the widespread infringement of its members' copyrights, or to the need for legal tools to protect those rights," the court wrote. "It is not the province of the courts, however, to rewrite (copyright law) in order to make it fit a new and unforeseen Internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry."
The decision did not address the legality of the lawsuits that have already been filed against hundreds of individual computer users.
The appeals courts decision comes in response to a string of ISP challenges to the recording industry's attempts to identify file swappers in order to sue them.
Beginning early last year, the RIAA had cited provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which it said allowed the industry group to issue subpoenas for the identities of ISP subscribers allegedly infringing copyrights over peer-to-peer networks.
Verizon Communications, the first ISP to receive several such subpoenas, challenged them immediately, saying they were unconstitutional. A lower court ruled in favor of the RIAA earlier this year, setting the stage for the hundreds of lawsuits subsequently filed. SBC Communications later filed a similar lawsuit against the process, also pending in Washington, D.C.
The appeals court did not address any issues of constitutionality or privacy in its decision Friday, saying only that Congress had not drafted the DMCA to apply to peer-to-peer networks.
Verizon welcomed the court's decision.
"Today's ruling is an important victory for Internet users and all consumers," Verizon Associate General Counsel Sarah Deutsch said in a statement. "The court has knocked down a dangerous procedure that threatens Americans' traditional legal guarantees and violates their constitutional rights."
Under the decision, the RIAA still would be able to seek the identity of file swappers, but would have to file individual "John Doe" lawsuits against the anonymous individuals in order to obtain the identities.
The RIAA was not yet available for comment. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Owned, you greedy, fat, pony-tail wearing, record label executive wankers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Court: RIAA lawsuit strategy illegal
Last modified: December 19, 2003, 9:15 AM PST
By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
update A federal appeals court Friday handed a serious setback to the record industry's legal strategy of tracking down and suing alleged file swappers.
Overturning a series of decisions in favor of the Recording Industry Association of America, the Washington, D.C., court said copyright law did not allow the organization to issue subpoenas for the identity of file swappers on Internet service providers' networks.
"We are not unsympathetic either to the RIAA’s concern regarding the widespread infringement of its members' copyrights, or to the need for legal tools to protect those rights," the court wrote. "It is not the province of the courts, however, to rewrite (copyright law) in order to make it fit a new and unforeseen Internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry."
The decision did not address the legality of the lawsuits that have already been filed against hundreds of individual computer users.
The appeals courts decision comes in response to a string of ISP challenges to the recording industry's attempts to identify file swappers in order to sue them.
Beginning early last year, the RIAA had cited provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which it said allowed the industry group to issue subpoenas for the identities of ISP subscribers allegedly infringing copyrights over peer-to-peer networks.
Verizon Communications, the first ISP to receive several such subpoenas, challenged them immediately, saying they were unconstitutional. A lower court ruled in favor of the RIAA earlier this year, setting the stage for the hundreds of lawsuits subsequently filed. SBC Communications later filed a similar lawsuit against the process, also pending in Washington, D.C.
The appeals court did not address any issues of constitutionality or privacy in its decision Friday, saying only that Congress had not drafted the DMCA to apply to peer-to-peer networks.
Verizon welcomed the court's decision.
"Today's ruling is an important victory for Internet users and all consumers," Verizon Associate General Counsel Sarah Deutsch said in a statement. "The court has knocked down a dangerous procedure that threatens Americans' traditional legal guarantees and violates their constitutional rights."
Under the decision, the RIAA still would be able to seek the identity of file swappers, but would have to file individual "John Doe" lawsuits against the anonymous individuals in order to obtain the identities.
The RIAA was not yet available for comment. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Owned, you greedy, fat, pony-tail wearing, record label executive wankers.
Comments
If cnn were to make a logo for this.
I bet it would be a lawyer crying.
Owned, you greedy, fat, pony-tail wearing, record label executive wankers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lmfao.
I wonder what it means for the 6 people at my college that were supeoned right before leaving for christmas break.
One of them was busted for having like 5 songs shared.
Either basically settle with RIAA for lonts of $ or get sued for LOTS of $$ Either way lets make a poor college student and family go bankrupt so Britnesy Spears can keep going on her $45,000-90,000 spending sprees.
Post Count History:
Post # 1870: IN the yer 1870 Napoleon III surrenders to Prussian armies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I wonder what it means for the 6 people at my college that were supeoned right before leaving for christmas break.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, from what it says, the court did not address that. So they're still going to be sued.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Either basically settle with RIAA for lonts of $ or get sued for LOTS of $$ Either way lets make a poor college student and family go bankrupt so Britnesy Spears can keep going on her $45,000-90,000 spending sprees.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes. I forgot this was the US of Cpl.D, where people have caps on how much they are allowed to make. As much as any of us don't want our money taken away, so do the artists and RIAA. I'm not really choosing 'sides' - the RIAA are overzealous at times, while the filesharers are criminals.
I still don't think that on a forum that is against warez, news reports that 'stick it to The Man' are really necessary.
good times <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Also: how come 'Wanker' can be said, when it is just as bad as the censored 'S' and 'F' words?
Curious.
Post # 1870: IN the yer 1870 Napoleon III surrenders to Prussian armies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
well that's nice to know
Until then, they will continue to spin their wheels and lose profits.
Uhhh, did I say i was in favor of filesharing? Or did I point out an article that shows the RIAA uses illegal tactics against people who might be (and have also NOT been) illegal filesharers?
And if I want your opinion on how to run this forum, I'll ask.
** Edited to be nicer, but Medhead, you really push my buttons sometimes. Learn to think before you speak, you'll probably be happier in life, and definitely in here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I wonder what it means for the 6 people at my college that were supeoned right before leaving for christmas break.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, from what it says, the court did not address that. So they're still going to be sued.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Either basically settle with RIAA for lonts of $ or get sued for LOTS of $$ Either way lets make a poor college student and family go bankrupt so Britnesy Spears can keep going on her $45,000-90,000 spending sprees.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes. I forgot this was the US of Cpl.D, where people have caps on how much they are allowed to make. As much as any of us don't want our money taken away, so do the artists and RIAA. I'm not really choosing 'sides' - the RIAA are overzealous at times, while the filesharers are criminals.
I still don't think that on a forum that is against warez, news reports that 'stick it to The Man' are really necessary. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know it doesnt address the facts about those others, thats I was "wondering" what s to become of them.
And as for the other comment I was voiceing my thoughts on whether the current methods that have been in use have justifed this means and consequences,
As in tying up the Criminal justice system with hunrdreds of supeonas for like, 6 songs and taking away valuable resources for cases such as murder, and white collar crime.
do not support illegal file sharing but I do support a fair punishment for crime which In this case i think can get hout of hand or driving for the wrong reasons. But hey thats my opinion.
And your entitiled to your own which I respect.
This one really annoys me from time to time. Is the average United Statesian honestly not aware of the difference between criminal offences (like, oh, say *theft*) and infringing copyright (like, oh, say *copying music*)?
Only a minor different, y'know:
1) Walking off with your computer (theft: criminal offence, prosecuted by the gov't).
2) Releasing an exact copy of your new model (copyright violation: not a criminal offence, prosecuted by you).
well i can tell a few of my paranoid buddies that the RIAA can't catch em no mo =]
Plus if the RIAA or anyother money lubbers try to come to my house (along with any mailman carrying those AOL discs) will have to consult my agent. Mr. R.V. Raging Bull.
mr. raging bull is some big guy, or he's a dog, or something.. right?
it's also not a constitutional right to shoot people >P
mr. raging bull is some big guy, or he's a dog, or something.. right?
it's also not a constitutional right to shoot people >P <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
it is in self defense >.>
<.< *runs over to dead body and drops a cardboard gun*
Wow, I didn't think Americans knew what that meant!
So... it isn't on the swear filter?
So... I can use it without fear of reprimand?
I'll have to make a mental note of that <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyway, RIAA got prawned.
heh there messed up. Also guys if your worried about em searching you, just move all of your stuff to another folder in a new directory, they cant search it without the proper warrant for it.
I still do it. I probably will continue to do it, since I buy a lot of cds too.
the RIAA, like it or not, is doing their job. You can still download songs, just don't pretend that the RIAA is an evil organization trying to stop your free spirit.
Wow, I didn't think Americans knew what that meant! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're joking right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still do it. I probably will continue to do it<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen to that.
Mind you I've hardly ever used filesharing since I started buying CD's (YES I BUY CD'S! LOTS OF THEM!)
However this isn't due to the scares of the RIAA, this is mainly because having money (Go Work!) to buy CD's is great and has increased my love for music in general.
But yeah up yours RIAA!
I wonder what it means for the 6 people at my college that were supeoned right before leaving for christmas break.
One of them was busted for having like 5 songs shared.
Either basically settle with RIAA for lonts of $ or get sued for LOTS of $$ Either way lets make a poor college student and family go bankrupt so Britnesy Spears can keep going on her $45,000-90,000 spending sprees. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is really sad...die RIAA. They're literally ruining peoples' lives.
I think file sharing to grab music that you listen to over and over and over is very wrong.
I would really like for there to be some service offered for previewing music that was fast, simple(simple enough for even my dad to use) and allowed you to listen to each song only a few times out of a library of just about every song ever made in good quality(sure they could be snitched but it's not like they can't from any filesharing network any way so there is not really much point in offering super good protection here). There would not need to be annoying popups etc, bandwidth is cheap enough to be offered for free for the purpose off helping people find music they would like to buy.(look at steam, that's a huge amount of bandwidth offered for free to anyone who bought a steam compatible VALVe game)
That would make me accept that sharing music should be punished(though not for insane amounts of cash RIAA tries to sue people for).
No, the RIAA doesn't ruin kids lives, downloading music does. Face it, it's illegal. The RIAA , however, has a right to go after people who download songs.
I'm not preaching that we all stop file sharing and live in la-la land, but at least stop bitching about the RIAA and how it ruins innocent lives. The RIAA is doing it's job.