Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Tactical Legal Victory vs SBC
lurker412 writes "The RIAA has won a tactical victory in its legal battle with SBC Communications/PacBell Internet Services. CNet News reports that a San Francisco judge has moved the case to a District of Columbia federal court. SBC had resisted turning over the identities of purported coyright infringers to the RIAA. While the San Francisco court ruled on procedural grounds only, the DC court is the same one that previously ruled against Verizon in a similar attempt to contest the DMCA."
You're gonna get a million or responses about the new coyright laws...
is a loss for freedom.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
I got 5 to 1 odds on the RIAA.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
how money can influence anything. And anyone who says that the courts are impartial is a blind as Justice herself.
A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care.
It is nice that the ISPs are kind of sticking up for us. I mean, if it wasn't for all the free music we get I'm sure $50 bucks might be too much for internet access.
100% Pure Evil With The Look And Feel Of Wholesome Goodness
The simple fact is that the RIAA is a pretty dang poor mechanism for mediating between the public and artists(i.e. the transaction costs are just too high-and this will become more obvious in time). These various court battles having nothing to do with creative effort and everything to do with maintaining power and control.
If it didnt work for Verizon why does SBC think they will win? Is there anything different with this case?
...and that is good.
Is it possible to get sued by the RIAA if you download (but do not share) songs by bands whose record labels are not affiliated with the RIAA?
It really irks me that this court didn't have the balls to stand up to the RIAA. Why does it all have to go up the court-ladder? Why can't these judges just make an informed, reasonable decision. It bothers me even more that the high courts in this country always seem to lean more toward the side of big business.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am so busted! I downloaded Buttmans "BIG BUTT BABES" last night.
"Honey, it was hackers."
Heineken? fuck that shit... Pabst Blue Ribbon!
...where we move the trial to the location where we get the verdict we want.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
So, did the RIAA attempt to force this by their arguments and "evidence". It's a pretty sad state of affairs if the system is so cynically manipulated (and capable of being manipulated) like this.
One of the strengths of the division between the courts and the law-makers is that the courts interpret the law, but if joe random nasty-person can try to establish precedent in a "favourable" court, then it reduces the value of the 'interpret the law' job description. Sad.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
They came for the old cliche lines, but everyone cheered for that because they were tired of hearing it
How about instead of reciting the same old drivel, you offer a plan of action that people might persue. It's fine to bitch about how nobody else is acting, but really unless you're offering a plan or incentive then it's not being productive.
Public: Congress, we demand fundamental reforms of copyright laws and (other) intellectual property mechanisms!
Congress: Sure, just a moment. Mr. Big Donors, how about it?
RIAA: No way (slap!)
Congress: Sorry, public. Bad idea.
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
Copyrights (or more accurately, the alleged right to restrict what other people duplicate) are really the root of the problem, when we deal with this one - then all the other ones will go away by themselves.
First they came for the rapists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a rapist
Then they came for the pedophiles
and I did not speak out
because I was not a pedophile
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Excuse me, but the file swappers that the RIAA are going after are not swapping their own songs. They are violating copyright law. Although present copyright law is not fair, it isn't an excuse to break the law.
The RIAA has one simple solution. Report the copyright infringement to the US Attorney's office. I'm sure SBC would have no problem giving up the identity of their users if given a subpeona from federal prosecutors.
So who are "they" anyway? And why have "they" been allowed to masturbate in front of all these disparate computer user groups with such impunity?
Do you do more to contribute than just post things this sorta thing on Slashdot? Are you a member of some local organization, for example? Do you call your representatives? Have you donated to the EFF?
Just wondering.
Why does the RIAA continue going after the little guy who doesn't have any money to give them for their file trading? Especially since some ISP's are trying to fight back for him/her. They managed to get blank CD's taxed because of the potential for copyright infringement, I'm suprised they haven't tried to put a tax on bandwidth for the potential copyright infringement that internet access offers.
Although present copyright law is not fair, it isn't an excuse to break the law.
How else do you propose we change the laws? The proper channels aren't working, because the proper channels are pretty much owned by the people we're fighting. So if we can't change the laws playing by their rules, we'll change them playing by our rules. Remember that line "By the people, for the people"? I think the people have spoken...
The original poster's cliche is a call to action. In this context I don't believe stating which action to take is necessary, as that decision could be very personal.
Conversely, your retort is self-deprecating. When you're finished reciting your own cliche-ridden "drivel" and "bitching", would you care to offer a plan of your own?
Because otherwise, honestly, you're not being very productive.
n/t
(one of the other participants here, baldrson has done something similar with analysis of films).
Sorry to be the voice of pessimism on here, but I've noticed a few people asking for *courses of action* which we as consumers could suggest or take to remedy the **AA's gestapo style tactics for movie and music sharers.
IMHO there is nothing we can do that will provide them the security and control that they want, while at the same time, protecting our rights as consumers. They simply will NOT let go! It really is that plain and simple. They've built an industry out of milking every last dime out of an intangible product. They don't offer a service... they offer an *experience*.
That's what sells... and sells very very well. There is no happy medium in this fight. They either get the control they want and we lose the control we want... or we get what we see now, half-assed versions of the products (if they can be called that) that we were used to, i.e. DRM'd CDs, bans on academy award screeners, etc. They'll do ANYTHING and everything to keep their fingers in the pie.
The only thing that would wake them up is a total nose-dive in sales. Not just a lull or low... an over-the-cliff, down the rocks, plummet of sales, either for music or movies. How will that ever happen? It won't... it won't happen because they're spoonfeeding us their restrictions. They know that whatever they come out with, we'll hack. Whatever move they make, we'll make another. But each step forward that they make, however small, in general public acceptance of their new products
whether it's a slightly DRM'd CD whose protection is defeated with a green sharpie pen or a watermarked movie, any little bit of that that slips into the mainstream and doesn't cause WalMartians to flip out over, is a victory for them.
Educating the general public about these things is the only way to go. Educating them to the dangers and restrictions that are being forced down their throats. But guess what? The public doesn't care. They don't give a rat's ass about DRM or watermarking or encryption or any such nonsense. They only care about the experience. Being able to escape the real-world for 5 minutes of music or 2 hours of movie is all that they want. So long as the **AA's are in tact organizationally... they'll have product to sell and that my friends.....
is the "rest of the story" so to speak.
To get on-topic, this court ruling (however final) is to be expected at this point. Perhaps it's always been this way and we never knew it because it never affected us... but whatever the reason, big-business in the country rules the land with an iron fist. I'm not saying that the justice system is totally corrupt, I'm saying the entire country is totally corrupt. Look around you right now in your offices and homes. What's NOT for sale?
Damned near everything we see and a good portion of what we can't, is for sale in some form or another. An organization like the RIAA getting SBC's previous ruling overturned is about as surprising as the ending of Titanic. Did you all think that the RIAA was going to bend over and take it like a man? That they'd let a media conglomerate of sorts like SBC tell them whose information is available and whose isn't? Hell no, they want names, they want numbers, they're not going to sit by and let some mid-level corporation tell them what can and can't be done.
This is a big win for the RIAA because there is precedent in the DC Court of Appeals, while none yet exists in the 9th Circuit.
The judge that transferred the case is a weenie. (I'm pretty safe in saying that. She obviously is not a /. reader.)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
First I stop swapping music files using P2P.(I dont do much of it anyways) Then I buy used cd's at pwnshop and used cd stores.($2-$10)Then I donwload free legit musc online. This make the RIAA think they are winning but Im cutting their throats by buying used cd's since no money goes to them. Sure the artists will loose money by me not buying new cd's but maybe that will give them incentive to get up and stop being such music company sheep and look for other way to redistribute their music.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
All things considered, if the RIAA lost in a lower court, wouldn't they just pursue it in a higher one? By bumping this up to the higher courts, this should determine a higher level of precedent. In the event of a win (which it should be unless the judge is bought) this would be good news for everyone.
But a call to what action? It's all good to say "stand up for yourself" but better to say how. Already mentioned in another response, I have my own personal actions against the RIAA (including not purchasing any of their goods for the last several years), but nothing new that hasn't already been offered.
Conversely, I think you confuse call to action with "lament." Where is the action mentioned? What is suggested we do, other than possibly/obliquely "stnad up for ourselves." Can't have a call to action without an action.
My answers would be:
a) Don't buy RIAA music
b) Do buy indie/non-RIAA music
c) Do see live concerts
d) With (c), don't support artists that support RIAA bullsh*t
e) With (d), actively list/protest/make-known artists and RIAA members that support RIAA bullsh*t.
I think these have all been mentioned before, but I suppose it's better than the old "and then they came for me" line.
the identities of purported coyright infringers...
I don't believe in coyrights. I mean, if you have rights, you should be upfront about them. No need to be coy.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
"Excuse me, but the file swappers that the RIAA are going after are not swapping their own songs. They are violating copyright law."
In many cases, the RIAA members are not selling their own songs, they are violating copyright law.
But the bands don't have any money, and the RIAA members have lots of money, so that's okay...
Dude, that's plain wrong.
Literally every single major label requires you to assign copyright to them. Sony. Universal. BMI. It's in the contract and they regard it as a dealbreaker if you won't assign (unless you have an obscenely large carrot-and-stick setup, i.e., you're a previously negotiated Big Artist in high favour and other labels begging for you; in which case you won't retain copyright due to the financial advice you've got; you'll assign to your own label or production company, and your company licenses to the label - this for example is what Metallica do).
In fact, that is pretty much the clear dividing line between "major" and "indie" labels - an "indie" label will distribute and promote (and sometimes fund) content they have licensed from the artist. A "major" label will only distribute, promote and fund content they own (unless you are in a position to force them).
Indies typically do their thing for points. When you work with a major, they give you points. Maybe. If you grovel. They literally own your work, in return for promoting it. Maybe you think it's worth it to get it "out there", or maybe you think you're better off with an indie, as some of them are damn good these days.
And then they remind you about how you'll never "make it" if you're not promoted by the major's promoters, which means playing by their rules. And then you point out that if you play by their rules, you've been fucked over, especially if it doesn't "make it" anyway because the major label cartel doesn't really want it to "make it", so they don't promote it much as that would conflict with their other interests, like their Big Artists' Next Album Getting To Number 1, which it won't do if something is being promoted more than it.
Of course, the majors control their spending rather carefully; if the album/single fails to make it, it fails usually because they wanted it to fail (or wanted something else to succeed more). If by some staggering coincidence it fails (remember: not only their choice, but since they can sometimes pull some expenses right out of their ass, under their direct control), you'll end up owing the label money they loaned you to produce the record; and money they spent on your behalf (i.e., they have been spending your money, as much as you haven't got and as much as they like, to promote their record). That equates to control over you. You can't pay them back, so well, it's time to work for hire. You're going to have to work on their terms now - it's that or bankruptcy, and then they'll literally own your ass; sure, they might lose some money, but that's actually a risk they're willing to take (given they are, in aggregate, still making a boatload of money - oh, and can then, since they own the content, do something sneaky like start promoting a remix after you're bankrupt, and make money off it that way, and not have to pay you a penny since YOU owe THEM some arbitarily large sum of money).
In case you haven't figured out the central point here; major labels love control. It's not money they like. It's power. Control got them where they were today, raking it in and making easy money off everyone, and only control will keep them there.
Control over the market (via cartels like the tight slightly-backstabby family of the RIAA and the more wary, edgily backstabby IFPI), over the charts (via the rock-solid sewn-up chart promotive structure), over the media (radio and TV; via indirect payola and liaison pressure, and sometimes implicit Understandings), over the music-buying public (via the media, radio and TV - they'll play it 'till you like it), over the legislative structure that allows the monopolistic status quo to continue to exist (via enormous campaign contributions) - and over the artists (via every goddamn means available to them, up to and including blackmail and threats, with certain labels and A&R reps!).
They don't fight widespread piracy because of lost sales. Hell, the more forward-t
The RIAA has one simple solution. Report the copyright infringement to the US Attorney's office. I'm sure SBC would have no problem giving up the identity of their users if given a subpeona from federal prosecutors.
You see, that's part of the problem right there. Thanks (in part) to RIAA involvement, we now have wonderful laws such as the DMCA where parties like the RIAA don't HAVE to go and report anything to anybody - they can just have their own subpoenaes issued and people branded criminals without the benefit or oversite of the Judicial branch.
Did you forget their attempt to make it lawful for them to break into your computer and delete files without judicial review (meaning no warrant, no explanation of "probable cause", no standard of behavior whatsoever)?
Sorry.. the RIAA had its chance to play ball about 4 years ago. They chose to snuff out Napster (despite the multiple attempts to create a "legal" and mutually-beneficial model). The Corporation is not listening to the demands of the Customers. Therefore the Corporation must die and a new one rise in its place.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Unfortunately for them, the burden of proof in such a criminal prosecution would actually be on them (well, the federal prosecutors - it's out of their direct hands at that point). And they wouldn't be able to control the outcome - or even the PR - as easily as they would in a SLAPP lawsuit.
They might even lose, as some hackers have been spoofing search results to confuse their probes and in at least one case (Mac Granny) this has slipped past their checking; also it would make for an excellent expert witness case to testify that search results from p2p networks are hearsay evidence - although they probably do indicate sufficient probable cause for subpoenas and judicial discovery (a loss would be highly probable if the user was truly innocent, so expert testimony - and indeed, fighting - should be EXCLUSIVELY reserved only for a truly innocent bystander).
Their stated intent in making these lawsuits is intimidation and PR ("public awareness") - of course, they made a few too many and were less than diligent in screening them, hence the poster child victims of the RIAA's direct intimidation - 12-year-old teenybopper, 15-year-old indiekid, and the Mac Granny.
Although present copyright law is not fair, it isn't an excuse to break the law.
Actually, it is. It's called direct action protest (not civil disobedience, which many confuse it with). Of course it could still get you into trouble,so you need the balls not to care, or just not to have anything to lose.
RIAA hasn't made mistakes in threatening people who they thoght were file swappers? They have. That's not even the big issue. The issue is that RIAA should not possess powers [over people] that even law enforcement doesn't have.
Isn't that what's at stake? You need to speak out not because you are defending convicted rapists (bad anlogy by the way), but for everyone's rights like due process. There's a big difference. The law (DMCA) is not only unfair, it's unconstitutional in that it violates everyone's due process rights. As far as SBC and its customers are concerned, RIAA subpoenas are violating the law - the U.S. constitution.
It didn't. The Washington District Court is at the same level as the San Francisco District Court. And yes, both of them are federal courts. According to this article In a situation in which the law is somewhat new and uncertain -- as is the case here -- this is actually represents an 'informed, reasoned decision'.
The liver is evil and must be punished.
Obviously courts and congress aren't listening. We need to speak louder. We should have civil rights era style protests over this, the DMCA and DRM, anti fair use, infinate copyright extension and such. We need consumer rights protests and we need them to be BIG. We need to picket every day in front of the RIAA and MPAA headquarters, congress and such.
We need people chaining themselves to chairs, stairrails and doors in their offices. Sit ins. Picket major events run by major labels or studios. We need to make congress people nervous when they see ordinary citizens in the streets angry over this. Only then will this even begin to change.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
correct me if im wrong but copyright infringement is not a criminal issue, its a civil issue. how then does a civil issue get escalated to a federal court. forgive me but im canadian and prefer not to know much about american law, its too screwie!
Notice that the Justice system isn't as much about Justice as it is about Tactics and Strategy? And that Democracy in America isn't as much about Democracy as it is about Bribery and Influence. It may be a cynical point of view, but the system we pretend to live in is pretty different from the system we pretend to live in. Maybe the Matrix doesn't require a giant computer network. The clever and wealthy are progressively converting the rest of us into a battery pack. The goal of the political system seems to be to get the public to produce the greatest power output with the least input.
Say what ? It's an excellent excuse to break the law.
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/RIAA_PSA.mpg :-)
I think this public service announcement speaks for itself.
I realise that this is a big hit for the little guy (or at least has great potential to be) but as I hear everyone complaining and no one doing anything about it. It's simple. Stop buying damn CD's!!! If you don't believe in the company you are buying for, then don't buy it. Will morals / beliefs override desires? (usually yes, but hey... I'm on a rant here) Hit them where it hurts the most, in the denero. ( money). Brit. Spears released a new album, whoopie doo, listen to other music and you'll find people with a small sound room that does just as good but with less publicity (and perhaps a better cup size, or wheverver your passion lies).
Could we have forgotten the roots upon which this country was founded and hand over such ungodly power to a corporation. The RIAA (and MPAA for that matter) is a profit-hungry organization, and sees people as merely profit generators. They don't care about provisions such as fair use. If they had their ideal situation, they would charge us every time we hear or see some of their "intellectual property" whether it was willingly or not. The common people need to stand up for their rights before they don't have them anymore, and contrary to what the placid images on our televisions tell us, that time is rapidly approaching.
Prepare to become even more of a faceless number than you already are.
Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
Although present copyright law is not fair, it isn't an excuse to break the law
WTF? If the law tells you to jump off the bridge you're gonna do it ?
I am fully behind you .
I have started the same thing - but don't forget to mention *RIAA Radar*.
Before you buy a CD, make sure the album was not released by an RIAA member at http://www.riaaradar.com/
Lots of great musicians out there!
(I recently discovered "Hayseed Dixie" - which tested safe on the radar)
I hope others get on board too. Tell everyone you know to check the Radar before buying!