Appeals Court Rules Against RIAA in DMCA Subpoena Case

JohnTheFisherman writes "My Way News is reporting that a Federal appeals court ruled that the RIAA can't compel the ISP to provide the name of the downloaders in their case against Verizon. In fact, the court said that one of the arguments the RIAA used 'borders upon the silly.' I believe most here will agree that this is great news." We've been following this case for a while.

Comments

Great, but

[QuackQuack]

What happens to the people who have already been snagged and settled with the RIAA? Are they off the hook?

Go Judiciary! Wooooo!

[GaelenBurns]

Our courts have been making some good decisions lately. The President is no longer allowed to hold US Citizens on US soil indefinately and without charges, the MA Courts ruled progressively on gay marriage, and now the RIAA is put in its place. Strike down the Patriot Act and the good old USA is almost back on track. Gotta love that glimmer of hope.

Re:Some more info...

[antiMStroll]

Microsoft was found to be innocent? I don't think so. The remedy was overturned, not the findings of the court.

Well

[Overly Critical Guy]

In fact, the court said that one of the arguments the RIAA used 'borders upon the silly.'

The court also said the following:

The appeals judges said they sympathized with the recording industry, noting that "stakes are large." But the judges said it was not the role of courts to rewrite the 1998 copyright law, "no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software industries."

In other words, this was a technical ruling.

The difference with Slashdot between other media outlets is that Slashdot doesn't dare mention the damage to the music industry. It's all a "culture movement," or something.

I used to disagree with the RIAA's tactics, but when I think about this situation, I really do have to wonder. There are people illegally trading music files. The RIAA wanted to get their names in order to prosecute them individually (which is what Slashdotters used to say they should do back when they were suing Napster). What was wrong with the RIAA going after people infringing on their copyrights again? What do I lose from them doing that? Nobody has ever offered an actual, cohesive argument. It seems like no matter what they do, Slashdotters are against them preventing piracy of their works.

I notice people here seem to be against software piracy. Movie piracy is about 50/50. Music piracy is maybe 90/10. Why? Convenience? I don't get it. It's wrong no matter the files being traded. You didn't pay to get the music. Nobody seems to care that some human beings paid for a studio and recorded the music for a record label that distributed it for them. Instead, it's, "Down with RIAA!"

I just don't get the revolution, I guess.

Re:I can't speak for everyone here

[3terrabyte]

In the end: does the RIAA have a right to sue copyright infringment? Yes.

I think $750 per song for someone not making a profit (what bootleggers truly are) is obscene. My fine could fund the whole Iraqi war. They hold that in front of you to force a settlement. That's harrassment, barratry, and inhumane.

The RIAA has used the money it has ripped off the artists for 70 years to buy more legislation so that it can act as the corporate police. It's time the government goes back to racial profiling or something it's good at, instead of propping up a monopoly that isn't needed for the good of the country.