Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Quashed
FsG writes "According to an Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release, a Massachusetts district court has ordered that the RIAA subpoenas sent to MIT and Boston College be rejected. This ruling came in response to an RIAA request, filed earlier today, asking that MIT and Boston College be ordered to comply with subpoenas sent to them a month ago. 'We urge other colleges and Internet service providers to take similar steps to protect their users' privacy,' said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn." Following up on this story. Forcing the RIAA to have their subpoenas issued from the local court rather than Washington a) is legally correct and b) makes it harder (more expensive) for them to issue mass quantities.
The RIAA will just refile the subpoenas in the proper jurisdiction. This will just slow them down. This is a victory for the proper procedure of filing subpoenas, and NOT privacy!
fp?
no thanks
Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be technically a federal subpeona (I assume there is such a thing) since it involves multiple states and interstate operations (i.e. the internet)? With the DMCA being a federal law, and the internet being country-wide (well, world-wide really) why would the subpoena not come from a federal court instead of a locality?
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
No, that's not what capitalism means. Capitalism means, for one thing, that the moview theater can't take $1 from 5 people who don't get popcorn to give to you for $1 intead of $5.
It also doesn't mean that you get to pay what you want for something. It means that the seller and the buyer meet at a point where a transaction takes place. So if that point is $5 for popcorn, but you aren't willing to meet at that point, then you don't get to make a transaction. There's no right in capitalism for paying what you want.
Think of the stock market. I want to pay $5 a share for MSFT, but I get no sellers. Is that unfair?
-BrentI'm not arguing that the DMCA is a Good or Bad Thing, but it is law and it allows copyright holders to issue subpoenas without going through a court. Verizon was the test case and the RIAA won, hence there's a precedent ruling that their behaviour is "legally correct".
The way I understand it, the DMCA allows copyright holders to issue subpoenas without going through a judge. They still have to go through a court.
This just clarified which court they had to go through.
which part of "shared directories" do you not understand?
You want to hurt the RIAA? You want to "turn it around" on them? Me too. Here's an idea: download iRATE Radio (it's on sourceforge. I'm not going to link it for you). Use the program to build a collection of free and legal mp3s. Go through the trouble of appending words like " - similar to artist XYZ" to the end of the mp3 filenames. Then share this stuff through kazaa. That way, you'll turn a few clueless people on to indie bands.
oh, and don't share copyrighted stuff. If the RIAA takes you to court for sharing free indie songs counter sue for big $$$.
Beware... this may get off topic.
It's interesting to see how many people vehemently oppose the RIAA; of course, as a sane individual, I'm one of them.
At the same time, I'm not surprised that a greater amount of reaction hasn't been taken against the RIAA's abuses of the United States' legal system and its obvious government manipulation through corporate power.
Historically, humans are much more likely to take action when they oppose something that legally allows others to do something they don't like, as compared to when they support something (human rights, for example) being challenged or when they are merely indirectly affected by it. This is how ultraconservative legislation (for example) is often passed, when a minority supports it rather than the majority: Most individuals against the legislation quietly oppose the issue, without taking action. A very small minority will work intensely and consistently to get its way, and they usually succeed. This is compared to the opposition, which takes action in small amounts that aren't usually consistent (like opposition that fizzles out after a large protest), and the opposition tends to be less "fire-breathing" as the other side.
Good examples of this are Minnesota's state legislature revoking domestic partner benefits for state employees due to a budget crisis and the influence of fundamentalists, and perhaps (please don't flame) the questionable recent war in the Middle East. (Disregarding whatever figures CNN or FoxNews may spout, I happen to be among those who doubt the majority in the United States actually supported the war. Ever.)
(You know, the one for oil? Oops... I mean, the one to hoist an unfriendly regime? Oops... I mean, the war to free innocent people from corruption, torture, and terror by murdering them and continuing to cause instability and terror?)
Back on track... the lack of reaction taken against the RIAA is disappointing but not odd, especially with the obvious issue that filesharing copyrighted material is illegal. But this isn't about copyright infringement, it's about the RIAA exploiting its resources while people just kind of let it slide by and wait to see what happens. Great thanks to the EFF for doing something constructive about it.
It seems that, for the most part, the only other people speaking out and taking some action (however small) are the people who've been sued. That is not to forget the generous people who have donated to pay the enormous charges against RIAA victims.
Finally, I must confess that I personally have taken no real action to fight the RIAA, though I should.
Am I missing something or does everybody have the ability to rent video games and movies...or is this not a reality? Seems to me that if i can have entertainment for a couple days for $3 a movie or less than why would i ever want to buy a $15 music cd? We should be able to rent the latest cd's from video stores and anything ancient, out of print or 10 years or older should be available in the public library. At least the companies would have to make quality product on a regular basis and kids would have a better appreciation of all the out of print and otherwise unavailable music that has been lost in the dustbin of obscurity and time. Just a thought.
The key to a successful free market is competition. Copyright outlaws competition. It is like prohibiting me from taking the seed from an apple and growing my own apple tree.