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."

Comments

RIAA is just a corrupt oligarchy

[randall_burns]

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.

whats different

[dhuv]

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

Slightly offtopic question

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Slightly offtopic question

[EmagGeek]

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.

Passing the buck

[dubdays]

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.

Re:Why care?

[nharmon]

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.

Re:I'm Glad

[Lord_Slepnir]

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.

My anti RIAA plan

[future assassin]

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.