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)
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?
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.
That is good. Because if the 'A' stood for 'World,' a lot of people would probably be confused.
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*
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!
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.