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.
Warning, the Washington Times link actually takes you to the Washington POST.
Not as bad as goatse... but still a phony link!
It's not just the Republicans that are in cahoots with the RIAA- the Democrats are just as bad. Even if we had a different executive administration, the RIAA would still have governmental support in cases like this. How can the American public's voice be heard when its elected officials repeated do not accurately represent them, and kowtow to corporate interests? What can be done?
guess what hillary rosen's up to these days?
just heard this report by investigative journalist greg pallast that says she been tasked with re-writing iraq's intellectual property laws.
so we've got corporate vultures writing iraqs laws... people with no experience in government or nation building... pretty disturbing.
Well, what did you expect?
That the junta^Wgovernment repeals a stupid law? Has that ever happened in the recorded history?
Govermnent does not kill stupid laws, judges do.
That't why the Bush clan made sure that judges sympathetic to their cause have the majority in the important courts.
This is how a dictatorship works, you know? The government makes stupid laws, and there are no independent judges to declare it unconstitutional.
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
Of course one branch of the government is going to support the other branch.
Didn't you guys ever take any civics class? Industry writes the laws, congress passes them, judges uphold them, and the president smiles at the camera. The four branches of government.
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.
Its not the Washington Times its the Washington Post.
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.
This is not a ruling, it is an amicus brief filed by the justice department. Essentially it says that they support the DMCA and the powers given under it - it just shows their position on the issue. The DoJ can "rule" all they want on this, but it wont be any more effective then me going outside and "ruling" that my neighbor has to give me his car.
Amicus briefs are filed every day by the DoJ.. so this is nothing extraordinary. Move along, nothing to see here except utter confusion generated by the poster of this topic.
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
The purpose of the executive branch of US government is to enforce the law, and not to judge its constitutionality. If you're going to blame someone, blame congress for passing this law to begin with. This law will eventually be visited by the Supreme Court, at which time it will decide its constitutionality.
The real problem here is that it is far too easy to enact laws and far too hard to repeal or overturn them.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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.
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.
You forgot that Bush respectfully exempted himself from the Geneva Convention. He wages wars without an UN mandate. And he forbids the International War Crimes Court to try American Citizens.
If you're the strongest military power on the face of the earth, you get to rewrite International Law.
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.
So who will the RIAA go after when a computer in a 7-person household using NAT to share bandwidth downloads an mp3? If a minor downloads the music, are the parents liable?
You're correct, the Supreme Court has the final word on whether something is Constitutional. However, it is a long slow process. The Supreme Court does not take a case unless a Consitutional question is an issue. And they don't take it until it is "ripe." That is, it has to have been through all the various levels of courts beneath the Supreme Court, and the specific Constitutional issues identified. Things that tend to bring the Supreme Court into action are instances where courts in different parts of the country interpret an issue differently. So if an appeals court on the west coast and an appeals court on the east coast come to different conclusion on Constitionality, the Supreme Court is more likely to step in and settle the issue. What this question requires is a little more riping.
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.
The founding fathers were very cautious to specifically mention individual rights, and to limit power. The early governments of the United States were equally cautious.
To be granted a patent (a monopoly on production of an item) required the approval of the Secretary of State, among others.
A corporation was only created for a very important matter. I mean, before the United States was its own country, the entire damn colony of Virginia was a corporation. After the founding of the United States, corporations were created to do something such as build a public work: the first one was created by the US Government on contract to build a bridge. It wasn't until practically the end of the 19th century that it became commonplace to create corporations for personal profit.
The founding fathers simply never assumed that corporations would be mutated into what they are today. A corporation in their time was a charter from a King to do a given job. Now it's given to anyone who wants to sell something.
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
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.
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 ]
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.
has led me to quit buying CDs/music. I don't buy it anymore. Really. I have what I have and am content with that and will not buy another music CD in my lifetime. I accept compilations and copies from a friend or two now and again but that is pretty much it.
I haven't bought ANY M$ software of any kind since I bought my first PC (a top-of-the-line 486DX-33 in its day) for similar reasons. I don't like the behavior or politics of the producer of the product, so I don't friggin' give them ANY money at all.
They need me more than I need them (speaking as a generic "consumer"). Take that simple fact to heart and live by it. Realise that you really don't NEED to buy any CD or software package. You may WANT to but you do not NEED to and, in fact, you can get by very well if you simply refuse to spend your money on the crap. Spend it on more worthwhile alternatives, blockade giving them blood money. Make them find a new line of work or reform.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
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.