Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Tactical Legal Victory vs SBC

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the no-privacy-left dept.

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."

15 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. RIAA is just a corrupt oligarchy by randall_burns · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The fundamental question is how long can they continue along this path before the public demands a fundamental reform of copyright laws and intellectual property mechanisms.


    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.

    1. Re:RIAA is just a corrupt oligarchy by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I will agree with you completely here. What I'd like to know is: If they are litigating for the good of their artists, and any money they get from the litigations are suppose to be for the artists (minus the usual *cough* legal fees), then where do we find out how much has been distributed to the artists? For that matter, how do we find out how much the RIAA and it's associates "earn" from music sales, and how much of that is given to the artist? I know a large portion of money paid to artists has to be given back to the label to pay off "loans" for making an album. Plus I know the usual middle men have to be paid before the artist even see a cent. Has someone, or is someone in the process, of figuring out these numbers. I'd like to see how much "protection" the artists are getting from the RIAA.

    2. Re:RIAA is just a corrupt oligarchy by randall_burns · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Copyright/patents aren't the only way to support artists and inventors. A substantial amount of basic research and art is already funded by government/private grants or prize awards. Those mechanisms could be expanded and formalized-and this would quite possibly involve less overhead than the hiring of armies of accountants, attorneys and MBA's associated with the copyright/patent system. It is really a question of what is the right balance here-and what creates for people the kind of future and culture they want.

  2. Re:Any RIAA win by pvt_medic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    yeah but wait till they start the lawsuits over the harm to their business by you not purchasing their music. Dont know what legal grounds they have for that... but i wouldnt put it past them.

    --
    30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
    Score:5, Troll
  3. whats different by dhuv · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If it didnt work for Verizon why does SBC think they will win? Is there anything different with this case?

  4. Slightly offtopic question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Slightly offtopic question by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The RIAA can sue on behalf of anyone they want to provided that person had not issued a decree that the RIAA may not do so.

      Anyone can sue anyone else on behalf of any third party - take a class action, for example. Someone sue's an alleged negligent automobile manufacturer on behalf of everyone who owns one, and it is up to the individual owners to "opt out" of the lawsuit to avoid losing their rights to obtain their own suit.

      THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, The RIAA can sue all downloaders in a class action on behalf of all artists, and then those artists, even though they are not members of the RIAA, would have to "opt out" of the lawsuit. The RIAA could potentially grab damage rights away from thousands of non-affiliated artists, without their knowledge or consent, and steal all of _that_ money, too.

      All they are required to do is put an ad in a paper of reasonable market coverage in the area in which the principal plaintiff has their principal place of business, which means one ad in the LA paper that 99.99% of artists would not see. After the opt-out deadline, the RIAA would then own the damage rights that previously belonged to all of those artists. Again, THEORETICALLY SPEAKING.

      In any case, do you think that artists are seeing a damn dime of all this settlement money? It's all going to the lawyers and RIAA executives.

  5. Passing the buck by dubdays · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Why care? by nharmon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:And finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Could someone smarter than me explain this quote?

  8. Re:Why care? by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  9. Re:I'm Glad by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 4, Interesting
    That's actually one of the reasons that ISPs are sticking up. One of the main perks of having broadband to Joe User is that he can get media content (IE, MP3s) much much faster than with dial-up. If the RIAA makes it loud and obvious that you will probally get sued by sharing MP3s, then Joe User won't share MP3s and cancel his $40 / month broadband and go back to $15 / month dialup, since dialup is enough for mail and html surfing.

    Do you really think that Verizon or any other ISP gives a damn about their user's privacy? They'd rather just give the RIAA everything and be free of the legal hastle, but with thousands if not millions of subscribers on the line, they'll be willing to fight it out to the last.

  10. One torrent a day keeps a lawyer away. by $criptah · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I may be off topic, but I think that we should start using a better technology (may be low-tech?) for file sharing in order to avoid a big clusterfuck that is about to explode. I have no doubt that RIAA wins a lot of cases because it has money, unlike many of the students it is trying to sue. Here is one example:
    You and your friends download different stuff by using Bit Torrent. Then, you visit each other (or have a party) with external hard drives. Plug-and-play baby!
  11. Re:RIAA is just a corrupt oligarchy-more than $$$ by randall_burns · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I would suggest that the real signficance of the RIAA isn't the money that it rakes in(which it does)-but the precise mechanisms in which it turns down money. The RIAA folks have an aspect of monopoly power-and within some limits they can promote art that might not be optimally profitable under the present system or surpress art for which there is a real demand. IMHO it would be important to do good analysis here
    (one of the other participants here, baldrson has done something similar with analysis of films).

  12. My anti RIAA plan by future+assassin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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*