Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Sides with Record Labels Over DMCA Subpoena Powers
Injektilo* writes "The Washington Port is reporting
that the U.S. government sided with the recording industry in its dispute with Verizon Communications Inc. on Friday, saying a digital-copyright law invoked by
record labels to track down Internet song-swappers did not violate the U.S. Constitution." We've been following this case.
Why don't one of you whiners do something like stand for election youselves, instead of posting about it on Slashdot?
Mod parent up, he has an excellent point. Don't like the current political situation? Do something about it.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
This brief is essentially meaningless. It has no legal bearing. Ashcroft's justice department has been anti-Constitution since day one. Constitutionally speaking, the RIAA needs a warrant to get this information. The only question is whether the Federal and/or Supreme Court have the enough integrity to uphold the Constitution.
Seems like bad journalism at its finest.
The story says the Justice department merely filed a brief with the court stating their position, yet they refer to it as a "ruling". So which is it?
"Verizon's persistent efforts to protect copy thieves on pirate peer-to-peer networks will not succeed," [RIAA's Matt Oppenheimer] told Reuters.
Copy Thieves. heh
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
From the article:
:-)
Verizon says such a move is necessary to protect user privacy because otherwise any copyright holder -- or anybody claiming to be a copyright holder -- could easily obtain the name and address of any Internet user.
Ok. Here is the idea--
By default everybody owns the copyright to everything they write, right? Which means that everybody problably owns a copyright to something....
Lets all claim that our college papers may be being passed around Kazaa, and ask Verizon for the name and address of everyone using this network. Or pick your favorite P2P.
Submit this request in writing, etc.
This should give Verizon legal ammo to use against the RIAA.
Since I have written some interesting articles and documents, maybe I will do this first
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Seems the record companies are complaining of lack of revenue in CD sales... yet they have no qualms about spending millions in legal fees to piss off consumers. Makes you wonder if they are so poor as to invoke legal protection to increase revenue, where does all the money to lobby legislature and hire lawyers come from? I think the US needs to seriously investigate it's priorities as per legal disputes... should it be aiding multi billion dollar industries by granting almost dictatorial powers, or helping the average American consumer live a free and happy life? Seems it's current stance is based more on financial gains than consumer protection.
Don't like the current political situation? Do something about it.
In case you didn't notice: the US's electoral system promotes a 2 party system. starting a new party won't accomplish a thing, it's winner takes all.
That is because corporations are viewed as legal individual enities; with the rights of a person. Which is a situaion I don't believe the founding fathers had any way to predict or develop contingency plans for.
In a normal situation, when I have a problem with a law, I would suggest petitioning your congressman and seeking popular support. But IMHO, with copying things it's different, the only real way is with civil disobedience and defiance.
First, copying things is a moral right, like freedom of speech, that exists above government. If we try to petition our leaders to obtain this right - then it would imply that the right to copy derives from the powers that be, and that is intellectually dishonest.
Second, the main foundation behind politics is that it's better to fight wars of words than wars of bloodshed. But copying things doesn't require violence at all. It can be done with impunity, little risk, little fear of getting caught, and no violence initiated on our part. The old rules just don't apply.
Thrid, laws like the DMCA, infinite extensions, and suvere disproportionate punishments and the like are just symptions of trying to impose copying restrictions in the information age. The sooner we get the problem at the root, the sooner we will get the dogs off our back.
Fourth, we have a moral imperitave to hit the people behind this like the RIAA and the MPAA where it hurts - in their revenue streams, so as to thwart their advances on our rights. Defiance of copyrights is the only real way to do that. Does anyone really think we would get that thru legal petition.
Fith, these industries not only controll the media, they are the media. They have an unfair advantage, and incentive to lie about the nature of copyrights, and even call people dishonest names like "pirate" - this is the only real way of dealing with that.
PS cnn is owned by time-warner.
http://saveie6.com/
A non-Repub/Demo leadership in Washington is not very likely. Ever.
Didn't you know that the corporations are rewriting the constitution? The preamble goes something like this:
We the corporations of the United States, in order to form a more profitiable economy for our shareholders, increase our bottom line, protect our corporate interests, ensure the protection of our intellectual property, have full control to abuse our environment, and secure the enslavement of the common people as mindless consumers, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.
Aren't you proud to be an american in this day and age? I sure am.
Even scarier, is this gen from the Justice Department statement of the decision:So aparently it's accepatable to violate the due process rights if suspected crininals. I look forward to seeing the 'clarification' of this statement that is sure to be issued, because we all know the justice department can't support the violation of the due process rights of suspected criminals.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I think it's great that Verizon put up a fight. They've provided a larger number of people with some pretty mediocre service for a long time, so it's nice to read about them making a positive difference.
...copyright owners have a clear and unambiguous entitlement to determine who is infringing their copyrights online and that entitlement is constitutional.
It is absurdly ill-thought-out that a "court clerk" gets to "rule" on whether the or not the RIAA has just cause to demand people's personal information. And I certainly hope that Verizon defies them in this regard and lands this in an actual court case. This would be an expensive move on their part, so I'm not holding my breath.
The RIAA's statement shows just how far from constitutional that they think Napster (et. al.) permits them to go:
Um, no. The courts have an unambiguous entitlement to determine who is breaking the law. That entitlement is constitutional. Having a copyright does not make you a peace officer; it does not qualify you to be trusted with confidential information and to use that information only in support of the court's decisions. The mechanisms currently in place to defend against such abuse are substantial (if flawed).
A court clerk (for all their many virtues) is not going to be qualified to verify that the methods by which the "infringing" IP addresses were discovered are valid or applicable to this law. The RIAA is going to get vast amounts of data on perfectly innocent people and force them to prove their innocence in order to remain connected to the one truly Free information media we have left.
How many minutes will it be until the RIAA uses this information to attack people like you and me that are freely expressing our discontent. After a 100 people who speak out against them have paid more than $1000 dollars each in lawyer fees to retain our Internet connections, who will dare to risk their connection by speaking out against these people.
If there is no blanket ruling against the RIAA in the first court case to come to trial what will follow will be ugly. First because of all the innocent, decent people that will be caught in the crossfire, second because measures this draconian will make even the average human sufficiently aware of the injustice to finally stop buying CDs.
In case you didn't notice: the US's electoral system promotes a 2 party system. starting a new party won't accomplish a thing, it's winner takes all.
I don't agree that the electoral college promotes any particular system with respect to congress. Your comments are simply wrong.
Your vote for congress, house or senate, had nothing to do with the electoral college, it has only to do with how many votes are in a district and nothing more. The electoral college has exactly NO bearing.
It is NOT winner take all either. We could have 15 political parties for president, and it does NOT go to whoever gets the most electoral votes, it goes to whoever gets over 50% of the total votes. It would require a run off election. Not all states use this system for state elections, but the presidency absolutely does. Also, some state can BREAK UP their electoral votes, Vermont I believe does this, so its not winner take all there either. State have the option of breaking up their electoral votes according to the count (ie: 4 electoral votes, 50 vote for A, 25% for B, 25% for C, then A gets 2, B gets 1, C gets 1) There are no federal laws regulating this, this power is reserved exclusively for the states to decide how to carve up their electoral votes.
Almost every law regarding federal elections is STATE law in the U.S., asside from 14th Amendment issues (equal protection) and sufferage issues. This is covered in the 10th amendment. This is also why some states had 'pole taxes' (later found unconstitutional) and others did not.
Everyone bitches about the electoral college, but outside of the presidency, it has no bearing whatsoever on any election.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Here's the bottom line: You KNOW trading MP3s is illegal, regardles of your personal views on the matter it IS against the law.
If you want your privacy respected, RESPECT the law!
I think the RIAA are a bunch of swine myself, but sheesh people you are breaking the law, they're in the right you're in the wrong.
The problem with the US system is that people are just inclined to stick to voting for major powerbases, that they know and (rightly or wrongly) trust, so you end up with 2 parties that have a hope in hell of being elected. What's needed is for the elected persons to be held accountable for _everything_ they do. That's where Accountabilitarianism comes in.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Why don't one of you whiners do something like stand for election youselves, instead of posting about it on Slashdot?
The whole idea of a Democratic Republic (like the US)is to elect people to represent our interests, not necessarily to vote the same way we would. Complaining about the way our Congress votes on a matter isn't whining, its political expression. The whole idea of individuals speaking out freely where our representatives can see, in the hopes to influence their votes is the whole idea behind America. Free speech is not just so you can complain TO the government, but about it to others to influence them as well.
With all due respect, you seem to miss that point entirely with your overreaction to something most of us consider important: The right to bitch about our elected officials. Newspapers express political opinions that are not directed only to the elected officials. So do TV, radio and internet news sites. People discuss politics in barbershops, cafe's and even on online posting news sites, like Slashdot. It lets other hear it, it has the potential to influence.
In our society, complaining IS doing something. Implying that someone should either run for office or shut up is so against free speech, that I surprised to even hear you say it. If you don't want to hear opinions, then I suggest you stay off Slashdot.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
1). A boycott will not work. We are presumed guilty on this, so lowering sales will increase the RIAAs mind-share among neutrals, that we are doing actual damage.
What can we do? Support the artists we can enjoy and respect us regarding this issue. They do not even need to be P2P friendly..bands and artists that are neutral towards live music at least will do the trick. We will see more respect coming from the industry.
2)For the "anti-pirates" out there, realize that suggesting the purchase of a live album, in the eyes of the labels is the equivilent of piracy. If it is not available, do not reinforce their meme-share by encouraging used sales over P2P sharing. Both are one and the same.
3. Forget about changing the political system. In fact, thinking that we can change things through matching their lobbying efforts is silly. The only way we can win is to bring it to the public. Do not support parties, support their supporters. Throw your hat in the cacophony of support for a common cause. Even if the politicians are corrupt, our trust must be in each other. In this way, we can avoid being ignored by the politicians, and in essence, make our goal reality.
Everyone bitches about the electoral college, but outside of the presidency, it has no bearing whatsoever on any election.
And since the president effectively runs the country, that's the only thing that matters. Once a president has been elected allmost all civil servants down to the guy who wipes the streets is replaced with people in favour of the ruling party.
Yeah, the US has a real democracy, you'll can pick one of 2 'different' corporate-puppet-on-a-string dictators every 4 years.
Yeah, the US has a real democracy, you'll can pick one of 2 'different' corporate-puppet-on-a-string dictators every 4 years.
You can vote for anyone in America. You can write in anyone's name you choose. You can vote for Mickey Mouse if you choose. America is NOT a two party system. It has two strong parties and several smaller parties, but its not setup for 2 parties only.
And you should really do something about all that bitterness. Its not good for you.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Shut up. You are free to do whatever you choose
Heh.
This quote nicely stands on its own, and makes your opponent's point without his even bothering to respond.
Very considerate of you, IMO.
I don't understand how it is not stealing just because you "Wouldn't have paid for it." If I walk into a store and steal something I can't say It's ok, I wouldn't have used it if I had to pay for it. I will still go to jail, and I will deserve to go to jail. It's that simple. The fact that it costs too much doesn't give you the right to steal it, the fact that the record company stole it from the artist doesn't give you the right to steal it. It's still worng. Artists have the ability to go other places with their music. If they wanted you to get their music without paying for it, they would distribute it to you for free on Kazaa. But they made a decision to let the RIAA distribute their music for them, so they are not getting ripped off they are entering into a contract willingly. You are ripping yourself off by purchasing the music (those who still purchase it.) The artists have the right to sell their music for however much they want. You have a right to buy it or not buy it. This is not like telephone service or oil or even Microsoft(Don't get me started here). You do not need Brittany Spears Music to function in your day to day life. Nobody is creating a monoply on music. Don't like paying for CD's: go record yourself singing into a microphone and play it back(it's still music). The music companies have every right to charge whatever they want for their "Quality" music. This is not a commodity market and the music companies are not setting prices on Pork Bellies they are setting prices on a product that is differentiable and unique. If you don't like it ok, don't pay for it, but don't steal it. its wrong and is punishable by law.
As far as Verizon is concerned. They are right. The Copyright holders are responsible for finding offendors and then subponeaing Verizon for specific info, not a blanket list of guilty and innocent so they can find people to prosecute.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
If ruled against, it's entirely possible that Verizon would simply create a 'copyright claims' department to shovel this information out to anyone who asks. This would protect them from future lawsuits ("See? we're cooperating fully").
A spammer could then, conceivably, send you an email to/through Verizon (anonymously, through a proxy server, etc.) then contact Verizon, demanding access to your email inbox/log files to see if you're receiving 'copyrighted' material.
Hell, after a few requests, they could even forego the 'email' part:
Spammer: Hiya Bill, it's me again.
Verizon: Hey Mark! Need to track down some thieves again? <snicker>
Spammer: <chuckle> You know me, Bill- my justice is swift!
Verizon: Ha haaa! You da man! Shall I zip it for ya?
Spammer: Please.
in any administration the government would side with a law on the books. do you realy think that the the executive branch would want to step on the toes of the legislative branch and undermine the credibility of the passage of the law?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
This article isn't about "stealing"/"sharing"/whatever you want to call it music, it's about privacy, and your right to have your ISP protect your identity.
If anyone alleging copyright infringement can find out your identity without going through the courts, that's not good.
Brilliant response. Suggest action instead of words, when you know the action is not feasible. You are well aware that no one can up and get elected without major financing, massive time expenditure (on the order of years) to build a support base, and complete upheaval of their entire life. So if this person does in fact try, they will be tied up in it for years during which time nothing will get done and you won't have to listen to them. If they don't you can attack them as having no conviction. Even if they do manage to get elected, years down the road, then that one vote in the Federal Government will not be able to effect any change in policy, and still nothing changes. Truly brilliant. My hat is off to you.
People like you disgust me.
I agree. America is not a two party system, though there are only two major parties that will get elected. Third parties have historically made big differences in elections and changed the message being given during an election and thereafter. In recent history, look at Ross Perot. He probably was never going to ever get elected but he had a MAJOR impact on the election. He redirected the talk to sane management of the government and a balanced budget. No major candidate even cared about a balanced budget before he came into the game, but he directed it that way as it made sense to most americans and it has shaped the years since. We finally got a balanced budget for the first time in YEARS. Too bad we know have Bush back in office. I just hope he follows in his fathers footsteps.
The real problem is in the media. Some people say money is what candidates want. That is not true. They want votes. They know that this is the only way to keep their power. However, money buys them media exposure and it is this media exposure that allows them to get votes. It is the failure of the media that has gotten us to the point where one needs to either be a multi-millionaire (billionaire) or have the backing of the two parties to win. Because they get the exposure. i'm sure that there are many other people that have a good message and could do the job, but obviously the media is not going to pay attention to them. Why would I vote for someone I don't know anything about? This is what most people would say. Since most people are very passive when it comes to politics, it has to seek them out. They won't seek it out. Until Americans care about politics, politics won't care about them.
Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
The real problem is in the media. Some people say money is what candidates want. That is not true. They want votes. They know that this is the only way to keep their power.
Correct, which is why the media LOVES the new election reforms: It makes them more powerful. Now candidates are more reliant on free exposure from media. Special interest groups can NOT run ads 60 days before an election, so they must grease the palms of the media for their issue to, magically become 'news'. This greasing can come in running ads for companies that are owned by the people involved in the special interests, or by purchasing enough ads prior to the 60 day blockout to get special treatment. They are becoming more and more like the 4th branch of govt.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Actually, I'd say its the electoral process in the US that is messed up. Voting for a third party ends up punishing you because the jackass that you hate most ends up elected. Ask the conservatives who voted Perot in 1992 and the liberals who voted Nader 2000 what they think.
Like it or not, all-or-nothing elections really only work with two-parties. A workable system would allow you to vote yes/no on each candidate and not the distorted all-or-nothing process we live with today.
A boycott will not work because people are too addicted to the mass marketed shit out there. Not only that, but what is the market share of the slashdot readers? Those teeny boppers will never agree to a boycott....they are too spoiled.
Now, that's only if this gets past the court now. But here, the DoJ is merely adding their opinion, rather than being the applicant. So the courts might not look at this as governmental abuse of the Constitution. But it would be come a crowbar in the future for the DoJ.
Here, the DoJ isn't looking out for the RIAA's copyrights, it's merly using them as a tool to gain even MORE power than PATRIOT already gave them. First it's bookstores and libraries that are forced into the role of gov't watcher of your information habits (and don't think that when they subpoena records from Borders or Barnes & Noble that they also won't get records of music and other purchases made at those stores), now it's your Telco/ISP for your communication habits, when they don't already have a secret tap on your phone.
I'm not normally this paranoid, but Ashcrost is the #1 threat to this country, far more dangerous than Bin Laden...
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
I look at all the problems that are typical in countries where there are several parties, and not sure I would like that either. Israel, where two different parties have to join forces to form a majority, and other parlamentary states.
I live in a country where there is such a system (the netherlands), multiple parties have to form a coalition in order to get a majority. I would choose this system above the US system any day. If I vote for one of the smaller parties (which coincidentally I do) I know my vote counts, even if it's a small party, they can still have some influence. If I were living in the US, I would never vote for a similar party as I voted for during the last elections in the netherlands. Either the democrats or the republicans rule the country, in a winner-takes-all situation, I'd rather use my vote to help the democrats instead of a small party. because although I'd rather see <small party> win, common sense tells me this is never going to happen, and I'd better choose the lesser of two evils.
If I would live in the US, I'd have to support a bunch of fscking idiots to prevent a bunch of bigger fscking idiots from ruling the country.
I'm thankfull that I'm living in a country where at least a small number of people in the government think the same way as I do about how the country should be run, and they're trying their best to talk a bit of sense into the bunch of fscking idiots that run it.
Gore, who is also a corporate stooge, received a similar bribe, so I'm not saying he would have been any better. But I'm just wondering if Republicans are happy about Bush based on this outright bribery that he received. It certainly doesn't reflect well on his honesty and character.
If I said I didn't have an incentive to grow oranges uness I could plant a tree in your yard, or if I said I didn't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I could own slaves on the plantation, most people would see this is these as the worthless shallow arguments that they are. But if I said I didn't have an incentive to to make beneficial or creative works without a copyright monopoly, then all of a sudden people just take it on faith, they don't even question it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. In my humble opinion, this is intellectually dishonest, especially considering that the entire Renassance happened without copyrights.
The simple fact is, there is no equivalency relationship between copyrights and property rights - incentive does not a right make. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that property has physical limits, while the foundation of copyrights dervives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The history of Copyrights is not one of rights, but controll of sharing and restricting the open use of knowledge.
That is why people who copy are not criminals, thiefs, or akin to pirates who board ships and murder people. No, infact they are really victims of a cruel deception. A deception that copyrights somehow financially benefit artists and creators. The simple fact is, that for every artist that makes it "big" there are litterally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, even hindered, or destroyed.
However, this is not the only failure of copyrights - it is just one in many issues related to copyrighrts that are just blown off ignored, or glossed over. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to provide quality material, the failures to provide reasonably priced books to college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few.
While the problems associated with copyrights might have been bearable 20 years ago when the biggist issue was Xerox machines, today we are entering into the information age where information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can be no middle ground. Our society will either half to controll all of it or none of it. Our communications will either half to be monitored or free, our privacy to be either contunuiously probed or protected.