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.
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.
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.
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?