Slashdot Mirror
Judge In RIAA Test Case Calls DMCA Unclear
otisaardvark writes "BBC News has an interesting article about how the judge has chided Congress for being inept and unclear. There are repercussions for both sides; primarily that the initial verdict will take far, far longer."
Does anyone else here find it ironic that the artical is being run by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and not msnbc/reuters/yahoo etc???
Is it just me, or does anyone else see any similarities between the DMCA and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act? Both are very broad, very indecisive, and ultimately are as powerful or as weak as the body enforcing them.
For example, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act gave the power to the government to break up trusts 9a.k.a.) monopolies, but never specified any regulations for determining what is and is not a monopoly. The DMCA outlaws the use of circumvention devices, but never really nails down exactly what a circumvention device is.
Both laws give God-like power to the person enforcing the law, if they wish to do so. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act allowed President Theodore Roosevelt to break up many monopolies in the early 1900s. The DMCA gives the government the ability to throw you under the jail for infringing on some one's copyright in a minor way, even for "fair use".
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act has long been criticized for its failures by historians and political scientists. Perhaps someday soon they'll see the DMCA in that same light?
Slackware forever. Honestly, what else would you trust when it absolutely positively has to be stable, secure, and easy
"Congress "could have made this statute clearer," he said.
"This statute is not organised as being consistent with the argument for either side."
The judge said he would try to rule quickly, but lawyers on both sides could not estimate when a decision might arrive."
The only way that I can think of that a Judge could rule quickly in a case where the laws are convoluted and unclear is to rule that the law is ambiguous. This would essentially throw the case out of court.
However from the tone of his statement it looks like he is going to make an honest effort to interpret the law. If so I don't see how a fair and speedy decision is possible.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
or Britney Spears' latest bra size
I'm just curious, what's she up to nowadays? C? D? DD??
Actually the Supreme Court's jobs are really two: 1) interpret current laws wrt some current case, and 2) decide whether a current law is constitutional. If the law is not constitutional, it is revoked by the Supreme Court. So if the Supreme Court sees the DMCA as unconstitutional, they can make it no longer exist, essentially. This *is* the system of checks of balances. This prevents Congress from being retarded and passing a law that, for example, infringes on Freedom of Speech (say, like the DMCA is a good example...)
You might want to take a better a look at the way the Judicial branch interacts with the legislative....
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
It's Uncomfirmed, but many estimate it to be 36C.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
It's not the media to educate them, they should educate themselves first.
I agree, on both points you mention. But consider: at what point in his education does the average American learn how to educate himself? Maybe, maybe in college. . . certainly not in public school, nor I suspect in most parochial schools. People are taught not how to think, but what to think. And then, because they have zero critical-thinking skills, they're lead around by the nose for the rest of their lives.
A responsible media apparatus could counteract this by leaving its bias on the editorial pages. Of course, I'd be the last one to accuse Fox and their kin of being responsible. But even American newspapers--whom you'd think would be the first to go for the cartoid here--can't be bothered to mention the DMCA's goings-on in court.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
You are correct, sir. And to go even further the RIAA wants vigilante powers granted to it so that it may circumvent the US concept of due process and decide who is guilty... acting as judge, jury and executioner as it systematically breaks into computers and destroys private property.
If you think someone broke into your home and stole from you do you break into their home and steal from them? Not with the protection of the courts you don't. But the RIAA wants that power granted to them through legislation they purchased from congressional representatives and senators
"Don't Follow Leaders." Bob Dylan
With only 600 mp3s, in a similar situation it could probably have been almost anyone of us.
Also, at this point the user in question might sill be quite unaware of what is hanging over his head.
With only 600 mp3s, it the user does not even have to be that net savvy as well.
Imagine having your door kicked in at 5am in the morning. 6 cops rushing into your house, your sister is standing there in her nightgown, and your comp gets confiscated. Yourself? You don't even have a clue what it's all about...
A phantastic story? Not really, it happened to a friend of mine... and, it wasn't even in the US, the scene as I described it took place about a year ago in Germany... 200 subscribers from the same ISP got their comps confiscated on hunt for childpornography.
He got his box back eventually, but think about it, how much illegal software is on your HDDs. The more or less accurate percentage on my comp lies around 95%...
How about yours?
OS Wars Volume 5: Recognized as the worlds leading soporific. Warning! Side-effects include headaches and vomiting.
I take it you haven't heard, The Bush administration claims the power to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial, an effective suspension of Habeas Corpus. All they have to do is label you a terrorist and you disappear in the night never to be heard from again.
The courts haven't been uncritical of this practice and have not exactly been... cooperative...
Now what has been scary has been Ashcrofts earlier statements that they would continue to detain people even if a court ordered them not to. In that case, why not just dispense with the court system and let the FBI and INS take over that role....
Now, you may think this is off-topic, but dispensing with the court system is exactly the path that the RIAA and MPAA are trying to take in this case (RIAA v Verizon) and in lobbying for the bill that gives them the right to use "P2P Warfare."
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
the riaa CLAIMS they just want the name so they can send a letter because most people stop when they get a letter. Verizon doesn't want to breach subscriber privacy. So how about Verizon act as a conduit? The RIAA gives Verizon a letter which they then pass on to their customer. Their privacy is preserved but they are warned they are being watched. Everyone wins!
Legally done in accordance with the laws of the US
Done in accordance with what US law ? Are you talking about the Patriot Act ? The same Patriot act that allows the government to monitor religious and political groups without evidence of criminal activity, to jail Americans without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them, allows The government to search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to aid terrorism investigation, Allows the government to prosecute librarians, telecommunication company officials and anyone else who reveals they have received a subpoena for records related to the terrorism investigation, Allows the government to monitor penal communications between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes, Allows the government to jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. Allows the government to close once-public immigration hearings, secretly detain hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist requests for public records under the Freedom of Information Act. You mean that Patriot Act ?
There are precedents for what Bush has done.
Yes there are precedents, but that does not make it right or just and I hardly consider imprisioning thousands of innocent Americans during WWII a shining moment in our history.
Why don't you read a little before mouthing off your talk-show soundbites.
I have to mouth off now, because I will not likely be able to do so in the future.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
I've seen alot of these, "why isn't the USA media reporting this" type comments, and all I can say is try reading a REAL newspaper, like the Wall Street Journal, which not only has the article but also list a RIAAvsVerizon FAQ , a PDF of the Recording Industry Association of America's July 24 motion, and a link to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's court filings page for the case!
The link for this article is here.
And by the way, if you want quality news coverage, typically you've got to pay for it.
Music Companies Try to Force
Verizon to Identify Subscriber
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Music companies tried to persuade a judge on Friday to let them obtain names of Internet file-swappers without going to court first, a move that could dictate how copyright holders deal with Internet piracy in the future.
Internet service provider Verizon Communications Inc. is resisting the music industry's subpoena, saying that it could turn Internet providers into a turnstile for piracy suits and put innocent customers at risk.
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, who heard the case, lamented ambiguities in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was enacted to uphold copyright laws on the Internet while shielding technology companies from direct liability.
Congress "could have made this statute clearer," Judge Bates said. "This statute is not organized as being consistent with the argument for either side." Judge Bates said he would try to rule quickly, but lawyers for both sides had no guess of when a decision might arrive.
The subpoena hearing, which is normally a tame affair, was contentious because the music industry sees it as a test case. If it succeeds, it plans to send reams of cease-and-desist letters to scare file-swappers into taking their collections offline.
Until now, copyright holders have relied on requests sent to Internet providers to take action on their own against suspected pirates. Almost all Internet providers forbid sharing copyrighted material without permission. But that can take a lot of time, and makes copyright holders reliant on Internet providers to enforce the law. Internet providers don't always respond as well or as quickly as music and movie publishers would prefer. They think individual letters from the maker itself might work better.
"Wouldn't that be a lot easier way to let people know that they are in fact not anonymous and there could be consequences?" asked Cary Sherman, the Recording Industry Association of America's general counsel.
Verizon said that since the hundreds of songs up for trade by the anonymous Verizon customer at the center of the case sit on the person's computer rather than Verizon's network, it isn't required to automatically give up the subscriber's name.
"Verizon was a passive conduit at most," said Eric Holder, a former Justice Department prosecutor who represented Verizon. Mr. Holder said the music industry's strategy could create a contentious relationship between Verizon and its customers and put the Internet provider in the position of handing over names to the music companies without a judicial determination of piracy. "We also don't want to be the policeman in this process," he said.
Lawyers for the recording industry rejected Verizon's arguments that it had little obligations in the process. Industry lawyer Donald Verrilli said no type of service provider is exempt from having to identify a potential music pirate, no matter where the songs sit.
Mr. Verrilli also dismissed Verizon's position that its customers have a right to privacy. "You don't have a First Amendment right to steal copyright works," he said.
The judge disagreed with Mr. Verrilli's assumption that the works were stolen. "Here, there's only an allegation of infringement," Judge Bates said.
Judge Bates gave few hints as to how he might rule. He asked many detailed questions of both sides. He called some Verizon positions vague, but showed little patience with other arguments advanced by the music industry and movie studios, which also argued on behalf of music publishers.
Through programs like Kazaa, Morpheus and Gnutella, a person can find virtually any song or movie -- sometimes even before it's released in stores --- and download it for free. On a typical afternoon, about three million people are connected on the Kazaa network and sharing more than 500 million files.
-- Copyright (c) 2002 Associated Press
Updated October 4, 2002 9:43 p.m. EDT
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!