Slashdot Mirror
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.
Gollum bites off Frodo's finger and falls into Mt Doom with The One Ring
[...] rejecting the trade group's claims that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.
Well, it appears the RIAA will have to focus on a different network layer: they'll start suing the cat-5 and fiber optic manufacturers..
Trolling is a art,
By Tim Copperfield
New York, NY - #FFXI (The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club) today announced acquisition of The SCO Group for $26.9 million in stock and $40 million in FFXI game credits.
#FFXI today announced it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire the intellectual property and technology assets of The SCO Group, a leading provider of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, based in Lindon, Utah. #FFXI's acquisition of SCO technology will help #FFXI sign up more members worldwide. In addition to developing new solutions, #FFXI will use SCO engineering expertise and technology to enhance the #FFXI member services.
"I'd love to see these #FFXI types slowly consumed by millions of swarming microbes and converted into harmless and useful biochemicals." said an anonymous slashdot poster, blinded by the #FFXI success in achieving first post on a popular geek news website, slashdot.org.
"This #FFXI shit is getting out of hand. Slashdot needs troll filters. Or better yet a crap flood mod that I can exclude from my browsing. Seriously, a good troll is art, what you dumb fucks are doing is just plain stupid." said spacecowboy420.
macewan, on linuxquestions said "Thanks for that link to the SCO quotes page. My guess is that they want to be bought out. Hrm, think they want #FFXI to buy them??"
After careful consideration and debate, #FFXI board of directors agreed to purchase 6,426,600 preferred shares and 113,102 common shares (the equivalent of 150,803 ADSs) of SCO, for an aggregate consideration of approximately US$26.9 million and approximately $40 million for FFXI fans that were working in Lindon, Utah offices of The SCO Group.
If all goes well, the final decision is to be expected shortly, followed by transfer of most SCO FFXI fans from their Lindon, UT offices to the #FFXI Headquarters in New York.
About #FFXI
#FFXI (The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club) is the first organization which
gathers FFXI fans from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being ANIME FAGGOTS.
Are you GAY ?
Are you a INTO ANIMU ?
Are you a ALONE FOR LIFE ?
If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then #FFXI (The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join #FFXI (The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time #FFXI member.
#FFXI (The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club) is the fastest-growing FFXI fan community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and Japan. You, too, can be a part of #FFXI if you join today!
Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
First, you have to obtain a copy of FINAL FANTASY 11 and play it.
Second, you need to join the official #FFXI irc channel #FFXI on EFNet, and ask them "how do I summoned chocobot?" in a tautological fashion (repetition).
Third, you need to succeed in posting a #FFXI "first post" on slashdot.org, a popular "news for gooks" website
Finally, talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!
If you are having trouble locating #FFXI, the official The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup
I did it!
According to this CNN story posted a few minutes back, a U.S. appeals court says that the RIAA's methods for tracking down those who copy its music over the Internet are not authorized by law. "The 1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit". Note that Verizon suffered setbacks earlier in it's case against the RIAA as reported here
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
First, this is good news but not great. The RIAA can't get subpoenas under these circumstances, but the court did not rule that provision of the DMCA unconstitutional, so the door is not completely shut.
Second, before you ask, this only covers one federal circuit (& the smallest one at that), not the entire nation, but in intellectual property matters what the DC Circuit says usually goes.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
Does anybody know if the ISPs could now be liable if they release thei customers' data without their consent?
Fleur de Sel
Not to go against the typical slashdot grain, but how exactly is this a good thing? Should we withold the names of child molesters to protect their precious "privacy"?
Now if my DSL stops acting like it was made by MS (slow, unreliable) for the past month, I'll be happy!
Wow, the RIAA ISN'T invincible after all!
What happens to the people who have already been snagged and settled with the RIAA? Are they off the hook?
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
A Dutch court ruled today that Kazaa can't be blamed for what its users share.
A good day indeed for community access to information.
Suddenly the judicial system is fighting back against the GWB/neo-con administration. Padilla can't be held, serious concerns about prisoners in Gitmo and now this.
The one thing I would like to see now is the scrapping of the deal Microsoft did with the DoJ.
Let the frenzied orgy of music downloads begin!
for people who have already settled as a result of prior subpoenas?
You have to hand it to the framers of the constitution.
It seems no matter how badly the executive branch and the legislative branch gum up the works with silly laws and larger than life egos the Judicial system keeps them in check.
Here's the full text of the ruling.
Interestingly, this is the exact same appeals court that overturned the decision against Microsoft. It's good to know that there are cool, compassionate people in charge of the courts who don't listen to which way the prevailing "geek winds" are blowing on e issue or another but instead disspassionately apply the law. It appears that in their mind, the RIAA is as mistaken as Microsoft was innocent.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Now if only the ISPs would countersue them... can they?
the RIAA can still subpoena your personal info. they just are prohibited from doing so without first formally filing a lawsuit against every john/jane doe they wish to sue.
The top of the OSI model.
The question will be who will buy more congressmen, the RIAA + MPA, or telecommunications providers.
Well, this is extremely good news. While I think that the file-sharing that occurs on networks such as Kazaa are largely copyright violations, I'm happy to see that the bar has been significantly raised for the RIAA to go after alleged violators.
This ruling will help re-establish anonymity on the internet, as users can worry much less about being identified by a vengeful 3rd party-- be it a record label cracking down on copytright violators, a corporation trying to stifle criticism or a politician trying to un-nerve his opposition. This is a beautiful ruling, and if it stands, its effect will reverberate fare part the file sharing arena.
Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.
In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."
So Verizon didn't come through with shining colors, but at least the Rediculous Industry Assoc. of America to a hit too. At the very least it means a judge would have to issue a subpoena before any ISP would have to turn over records. And, from what little information is provided in the article, I would have to guess they're going to have a hard time since they tend to make arguements in court that border upon the silly.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
"It unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation." -RIAA Yep, thats it all right, we're PUSHING them to sue.... They dont really want to after all.. CoirNoir
This ruling pertains only to the Verizon case, although it has implications for other current cases. It doesn't apply to cases already settled, especially since they were settled out of court.
Where I work, running P2P in our network is a cause for summary dismissal - it doesn't matter if you're a professor or a student. Zero tolerance.
Judges that know they're not there to make or expand law are the best.
RIAA can't compel the ISP to provide the name of the downloaders
Excellent! Now I can breathe a sigh of relief, knowing my obsession with Clay Aiken will remain a secret.
Oops.
This is a huge win for networks and ISP's. According to the findings of the lawsuit Companies like Verizon are not responsible for what data travels over their network. This should also effect cases where ISP's were being sued for hosting certain types of websites. While it doesn't overturn the DMCA it is a giant step toward protecting free speach.
I would like to salute the ashes of american flags, and all the fallen leaves filling up shopping bags.
I was getting tired of driving back home to "see the family" to use their high speed in their name instead of mine. What? Their old.. Less time to serve in prison..
I submitted this, but not soon enough.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
It's always been silly, and it's just now dawning on the judges?
This is great news. Incentive, really. Yes, the lawsuit was against Verizon, but I see no reason why other companies (and individuals) shouldn't stand up and challenge a lot of what has been going on. It's not necessarily that our judicial system has been in agreement with the RIAA, it's just that people have had no precedence working for them in a courtside challenge. The question now is, which do we take on: the RIAA, or the DMCA itself?
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
...the real problem is Congress. I think the RIAA will just go back to their Congressional, Sonny Bono-style minions on Capitol Hill to get this "fixed", and we will have another silly DMCA II law that covers this situation.
This does mean that downloading music off the net is not theft.
Now if we can keep the entertainment industry(s) from now trying to rewrite the laws and make it legal to supoena without judicial oversight well be set. Yes it would mean they'd move to more overtly sinister means but if so they'd be screwing themselves.
Let us rejoice in this one small/big victory for regular people. You know as big as these lawsuits were supposed to be there's been little if any in the news about them. I think it's more of a campaign of disinformation than anything and some people are weak enough to buy it but most aren't ignorant to what's going on.
Ponder this...how long until we get pulled over by the police for speeding or something else along those lines and they search our vehicles for mps's burned on cdr's? I can just see being in the "bighouse" with a bunch of murderers and rapists and then they ask me what I did. Oh I just burned some Britney Spears song to a cd. What's that Bubba? Do I have to drop 'em and grab my ankles?
Our future police state sounds so much fun!
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
The RIAA will lobby for a new law that allows them to get these records. (As the court wisely notes Congress did not contemplate P2P in 1998) If there was a time to mobilize an effective campaign against such a law, now is the time to do it.
Then DMCA nonsense can be brought to light and this case quoted everytime this stuff comes up.
On the other hand, I run a mailing list for travel agents and although collusion among travel agents is illegal (against the Sherman Antitrust Act) I have the list protected via the DMCA. If a vendor gets his hands on a private email from the mailing list, then it's a violation of DMCA just by possessing it.
Maybe we need to start thinking about ways of using the DMCA to protect ourselves. It's not just for big corporations.
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.
We have the Internet now, which is owned by AOL, which exists in Virginia. Which is under the D.C. Circuit Court. Which means that whatever they decide applies to an overwhelming majority of the Internet's core infrastructure.
You must have been thinking of the real world... which is weird, because this is Slashdot.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Two different hearings, with different results. Verizon lost last time, and RIAA lost this time. Now, if it goes to the Supreme Court, we'll find out the real winner, otherwise it's Verizon.
Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.
Ok so verizon is arguing that it isn't responsible for what data the users of their service send? that they should only be responsible for data on their servers?
this makes perfect sense to me if i'm reading this right. data is data how is verizon suppose to know what the data is other then the fact that it run on port X and port X is known to be the default port for kazaa.
In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."
if i was correct before why would this seem silly to the judge? loophole? how is it a loophole? does the USPS scan every mail going through it's buildings for copies of music? it seems to me that kazaa was just speeding up the process.
Ok other then the fact that most ISP block port 80 and 21 (among other ports) why doesn't these P2P services just use a well known port to transfer files? then in order to shutdown P2P they would have to shutdown the WWW. if i download a song off a computer of port 80 how would verizon/any ISP know it was a copyrighted song?
After it was accepted by Republican controlled House and Senate.
The moron has been our moron-in-chief now for 4 years. It's about time you start taking responsibility for his bad, bad decisions. You can't blame it all on the previous administration.
I do, however, feel some sort of sympathy with all of you Clinton haters. I never realized before that you really could hate a president so much. Both as a person (religious bigot, weak, stupid) and as the institution (horrific, extremely dangerous foreign policy). After four years of GWB administration I'm beginning to understand the paranoia and hate with which certain people reacted to Clinton administration.
that every post against this ruling is modded down, and every post for it is modded up? When did Slashdot become so partisan?
HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
The court did not decide on the constitutionality of obtaining the subpeanas, they simply agreed with Verizons argument that the RIAA did not have the right to obtain them in this particular case. While this does serve as excellent case law for future arguments, it does NOT stop the RIAA from continueing to subpeana other ISPs for information.
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
hypenosys/corepirate nazi payper liesense stock markup fraud eyecons?
or, does just appear that way?
let me know.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
Since they recently got DSL working in my area now I'm even more seriously considering switching.
I wonder how Cox would handle a case like this.
Here it is. The appeals court noted that the drafters of the DMCA didn't forseee P2P technology... otherwise, the outcome may have been different.
> get tea
No Tea: dropped.
That someone with some balls ruled for the common man's privacy. Of course no the RIAA will probably team up with SCO to make everything they do Leagle and important. Wait a sec.. maybe thats the real backer of the SCO lawsuit.. the RIAA. Just a blip in the mind
Just realise the reality of the situation..... There is no reality.
Who said I was defending the Republicans? The democrats/republicans are just different puppets pulled by the same strings.
He came in January 2001... it is now December 2003, explain your math, PLEASE.
In his ruling, the trial judge...warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."
This means that the RIAA and others will just lobby Congress, and a law that they can use will be passed.
We're still screwed, privacy-wise, because this development will be temporary.
It smacks upon the ineptness of SCO's management to realize that litigation as a primary means of justifying revenue is a dark room with no way out. Now even Walmart and others have figured out profitable methods of music distribution. It's sad that a retailer embraced it before an agency representing CREATIVE ARTISTS (sorry for yelling). Yes, the Record Labels have been working on their own version, but IMHO they've spent so much time trying to lock it down they got left behind.
I'm surprised there aren't anti-trust lawsuits against the record lables for supressing innovation and forcing flawed products upon us (at artifically inflated prices). Hmmmm...DVD 19$, CD soundtrack $16.....
John
"Don't tell me this is the most distubing post you've seen on
What good does it do to us if a friggin' terrorist who has admitted being a part of the 9/11 is tried in a civilian court? Get real. We should just shoot these guys.
Gay marriage? Are you a fucking fag or something or why is this so important to you? I'm glad that my president has gone public saying that he'll veto all attempts to drag the sacrament of marriage (which by definition can only exist between a man and a woman) in mud.
Cary Sherman, president of the recording industry group, said the ruling "unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation."
"Offer the opportunity to settle"...Kinda like offering an olive branch made of pointy steel leaves and covered with anthrax. Now that's a classic worth framing!
GTRacer
127.0.0.1
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
the court did not rule that provision of the DMCA unconstitutional
No, but it did say (in effect) that the DMCA protects the ISPs, because the ISPs aren't hosting the files.
Imagine that! The DMCA, lobbied for by the RIAA is coming around to bite them in the ass!
Gotta love the irony!
From the freep.com article:
"Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.
In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation ``makes little sense from a policy standpoint,'' and warned that it ``would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet.'' "
So the judges also told Verizon that part of their arguement was laughable as well.
X steps forward, Y steps back, you fill in the two variables, what do you think?
I think this ruling is like 3 steps forward, 1 step back.
it would deeply disturb me to think that there was someone out there who enjoyed his "singing."
There is nothing RIAA can do about, they are screwed!
Naturally, if this ruling stands, I see no other possible result than to either force the RIAA to do just that--file lawsuits before recieving personal info--, or to stop shaking down end users through threats of multi-million dollar lawsuits.
Elections that will decide whether we'll choose the neocon nightmare for yet another four years or if we'll finally wake up.
I work in Germany and one article in a local major newspaper got it right. It roughly translated as: "On 9/11 America plunged into a psychosis of a nation state". I can only hope we're finally coming back to sanity.
w00t.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
It's interesting that Verizon won more or less on a single point. ISPs who discover that people are storing pirated content on their (the ISP's) servers can avoid getting in trouble by "respond[ing] expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing." That part of the law hasn't changed.
However, Verizon successfully argued that the responsibility to "remove or disable access to the material" does not apply to ISPs that do not store the data, but instead act as mere conduits through which the pirated files travel. And that's exactly what's going on in the case of P2P file sharing - the illegal file is stored on the pirate's computer, not the ISP's servers.
Verizon argued that under the DMCA, in order for a subpoena to be valid, it has to contain information about infringing material "to be removed or access to which is to be disabled". Verizon argued that it can't remove the material or disable access to it. And since that requirement for issuing a subpoena cannot be met, the subpoena process does not apply to Verizon. The court agreed.
The RIAA unsucessfully argued that Verizon could remove access to the infringing material by simply cutting off access to the pirate, but the judge disagreed that that's what the DMCA was talking about when it uses the phrase "diable access".
From the ruling...
No matter what information the copyright owner may provide, the ISP can neither "remove" nor "disable access to" the infringing material because that material is not stored on the ISP's servers. Verizon can not remove or disable one user's access to infringing material resident on another user's computer because Verizon does not control the content on its subscribers' computers.
The ruling concludes with some sympathy by the judges for what the RIAA is trying to do, but a refusal to extend the DMCA to technology like P2P that didn't even exist when the DMCA was written. The court said that if the RIAA wants to subpoena ISPs for information about P2P file traders, it will need to get that additional authority from Congress. A good demonstration of judicial restraint, IMHO.
Typical liberal. When you run out of facts (did you ever have any??) you resort to name-calling.
Unfortunately, you'll notice that all of the good, proper rulings have come out of lower courts. The Supreme Court, however, continues to rule foolishly on many issues.
Fuckers.
When asked what the company thought of freedom on the internet a Verizon spokseperson responded:
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."
Today is a gift. Save the receipt.
the MA Courts ruled progressively on gay marriage
I guess that means you and your lover can get married now. Good luck on having children to pass on your pathetic genes.
IANAL, but it looks like the RIAA's venue change to DC in the SBC Case is about to bite them in the ass hard.
We've upped our standards. Up yours.
Microsoft insn't innocent. They have been convicted of abusing their monopoly, and that still stands. The appeals court decided the remedy was not proper (and I think also threw out some claims), but microsoft has been convicted of breaking the law and is not innocent.
That was the TRIAL judge, not the appeals judge.
Then shut up, eurotrash, learn to count years and stop trolling.
"I do, however, feel some sort of sympathy with all of you Clinton haters. I never realized before that you really could hate a president so much. Both as a person (religious bigot, weak, stupid) and as the institution (horrific, extremely dangerous foreign policy). After four years of GWB administration I'm beginning to understand the paranoia and hate with which certain people reacted to Clinton administration."
Damn. I'm printing that out and framing it. Describes me to a T.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
First, the opinion can be found here: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinion s/200312/03-7015a.pdf
The basic holding here is that the subpoena provisions of the DMCA only apply to an ISP who is actually storing the allegedly infringing material on its (the ISP's) servers.
They base this holding on a finding that, in the case of file-sharing between users, the ISP is simply acting as a conduit for the transfer of information, and has no control over the transfer or the information sent. Since the subpoena provision has a notice provision in it that requires that the content-provider give the ISP enough information to be able to prevent access to the offending material. Since preventing access is impossible without terminating the offender's internet access, a remedy the court dismissed as inappropriate, the court found satisfaction of the notice provision to be impossible.
The court also ruled that the text of the statute and the legislative history (i.e., comments made and written by Congress as they debated the DMCA before passing it) indicated no awareness of P2P file sharing.
The court ends by stating that it is "not unsympathetic" to the RIAA's "plight", but it leaves the burden on Congress to change the law, if they think it really needs changing. Rough translation: Start winding up the lobbyists, they have work to do.
Is this going to put some staffer out of a $15/week "job"?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
DMCA. PATRIOT ACT. CAN-SPAM. Infinite copyright extension.
Congress doesn't get it. The President doesn't get it. If businesses get it, it won't matter because their interests aren't aligned with ours. If the voters get it, it may not matter if the votes aren't counted right (paperless voting machines).
The only hope is if the judges get it. For the next few elections, I think judicial appointments will be the key factor in who I vote for.
Stories like this give me a little hope.
It seems to me that the gist of the judges' takes are "look, the fact that we don't like this filesharing thing any more than you do doesn't mean that you can twist and turn the present laws for your own purposes. Lobby for better laws, and then we'll talk and we'll probably agree with you."
This language is the most worrisome to me:
The implication is that the present internet architecture is damaging to the music industry, and the music industry's woes have nothing whatsoever to do with fundamental failures to serve the market.
I'm not jumping for joy at this ruling. If anything, it's a short-term gain embedded in language that is entirely slanted towards the industry.
-chuck
Don't get me wrong, the MPAA is just as zealous over IP as the RIAA, but I saw one of those ads before the trailers when I went to see Matrix III.
You know, the advertisements where they get a camera guy that is in an equipment storage shed talking about how pirating hurts the little guy.
Well, damn, I just felt so horrible after the ad was done that I promised myself I wouldn't pirate Matrix III. Then I saw how horrible it was over the next 2 hours and realized something huge:
The movies that I *don't* want to pirate always end up being pure crap. And the movies that I *do* pirate end up being the ones I later buy on DVD when they come out.
Disney's Pirates ... is a great example of this. "The Ring", "Frailty", "Final Destination 1 & 2", and "Signs" are others.
In fact, looking through my DVD library I'm realizing that there are several movies that I just flat out would have never have bought on DVD had I not seen them online. And I certainly wouldn't have seen them in the overpriced and crowded theatres.
So how many people are like me? And what happens to their profits when we *QUIT* catching these hidden gems online?
Dang, and here I was thinking I could write up letters to ISPs asking for the names addresses of their customers so I could send them spam. sigh..
I predict many counter-suits against the RIAA.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
No -- that was the original trial judge, not the appeals panel. That original runing has been overturned. (I read it the wrong way at first as well.)
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
The RIAA has run rampant long enough violating all kinds of rights. Time for them to get a taste of their own music.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
What is scary is that, despite one argument 'borders upon the silly.', the case has to go to an appeal court. If it is silly, shouldn't it stopped at first judgement ?
Now watch subscribers who paid up to the RIAA sue the ISPs who handed out their private records.
The Lawyers win again.
My question here is in relation to the infamous 'Comcast DMCA Letters' that I've heard about, where subscribers are notified that they have been found to be hosting copyrighted files, or otherwise breaking the DMCA, through a p2p program (BitTorrent, Emule, etc). The ISP essentially warns the user, "We know who you are, we know what you're doing, now stop it or we'll cut your access before we're held liable."
but with statements like:
No matter what information the copyright owner may provide, the ISP can neither "remove" nor "disable access to" the infringing material because that material is not stored on the ISP's servers. Verizon can not remove or disable one user's access to infringing material resident on another user's computer because Verizon does not control the content on its subscribers' computers
Doesn't that seem to take the burden from the ISP for making sure that the offending material is removed from the subscriber's system?
'Life is like a spoonful of Drain-O, it feels good on the way down but leaves you feeling hollow inside'
The Dutch courts have ruled that the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a worldwide analogue of the RIAA), can not sue Kazaa for the transgressions of its users (e.g.). This means Kazaa will be available for legal filesharing, and the recording industry must go after individuals who engage in illegal filesharing.
The Dutch make up about 20% of the world's filesharing individuals, according to the article.
No, seriously. This guy's been paying attention.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
FYI, I'm an American ex-pat.
... if you think what they are doing is wrong.
"Civil unions" or whatever.
"Marriage" as viewed by the COURTS is more like a CONTRACT between two people.
"Marriage" as viewed by various churches (but not all of them) is something that [GOD, The GODS, GODDESS] has said is HOLY when performed according to the rules in their holy book.
Big difference there.
If you want to preserve marriage, you start by restricting bad marriages and making other marriages unbreakable and CRIMINALIZING acts that would break a marriage.
Adultry is a CRIME.
Staying out all night with the guys is a CRIME.
Flirting with someone else is a CRIME.
RIAA companies CDs: " What a crappy present!"
The problem with MPAA's approach is that they're showing the trailer to the people that paid to see the movie.
I've heard people say things like "In times like this we have to..." and thats BS. If the rules are only there when its easy, then they don't count for diddily. It is just as important important that Padila get a fair trial as it is that Joe Blow the convenience store robber get one.
Really, if we live in a nation where the ruler can say "he's bad, let's just shoot him, no need for a trial", how is that different from the way Saddam ran things?
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
For wireless transmissions thru the air
Artifical Intelligience is no match for natural stupidity.
Single parents do, actually, produce unbalanced and confused children.
IANAL
The ISP's aren't compelled to release that information without a court order.
That doesn't mean that they can't release that information if they are asked without a court order.
If anything, those people would have to sue their ISP's for failing to protect their confidentiality, if such was every suggested.
"does the USPS scan every mail going through it's buildings for copies of music?"
Don't know about your post office but mine has a poster up saying that anything containing media may be subject to opening and examination. Said poster contains graphics of a cd, vhs tape, floppy disk etc.
Obviously, this is a huge win for everyone out there that pirates music, it will make it a lot more difficult for the RIAA to get your name and home address.
More importantly, this is a huge win for ISPs. It restores the security ISPs had been given previously in the 80s from the Communications Act--immunity from their customers. The Communications Act was pushed through Congress by the Bells to make sure they couldn't be sued if someone was using their phone service to do something illegal. Just like the USPS isn't responsible if you use the mail to commit a crime, the phone company shouldn't be responsible if you use the phone to commit a crime. This trial restored the protection ISPs had previously assumed.
ISPs shouldn't be responsible to do jack if you use your Internet connection to commit copyright infringement--without a warrant.
Correct? If Comcast decided that it was in their interest to help out the RIAA, could could turn over requested info on their user's names. The article seems to be saying only that an ISP can't be FORCED to reveal the information without a court order signed by a judge.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
"Duuuude, I am sooooo much more stoned than you!"
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I must say that I agree totally with you on all the points you've made.
Michael C. Hollinger
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.
Props to the Dems for blocking the new right-wing judicial nominees who would rubberstamp all that crap.
wretched hives of scum and villany!
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
Well, it appears the RIAA will have to focus on a different network layer: they'll start suing the cat-5 and fiber optic manufacturers.
Suing fiber optic manufacturers misses the point.
What does fiber optic cable transmit? Light. And who is responsible for light?
"And God said, Let there be light; and there was light (Genesis 1:3)."
-kgj
-kgj
I'm not sure if this is 100% a good thing. We can all agree that downloaing music and sharing it is slightly unethical. Some may still choose to do it.
Now instead of beig able to settle for 5000 out of court, you can bet the RIAA will be upping the amount they sue for to pay for court costs.
Veramocor
I think it's sad that American politics has become so polarized. What is next? Civil war?
whoa there tonto.
staying out all night with the guys is a crime?
so you are saying that if theres a big fight and a guy and his buddies leave their wives behind for the night, drive into the city, go to the fight, and crash at a hotel nearby rather than drive home drunk, they committed a crime?
yes, it is a bad thing to spend all your time away from your spouse, especially if that time is spent doing things like drinking, carousing, etc, but you need a reality check here. you cannot make a blanket law like that, you would make criminals of a great deal of good husbands/wives. for that matter, why must it be a sexist law in the first place, is it ok for someone to be out all night with the girls in your ultra-right wing world? assuming of course there is no flirting.
you cannot criminalize thoughts and such, you cannot legislate how people will live thier lives, that is criminal.
i for one think marraige has become a joke, something that people need 3 tries to get right, without much regard for kids/family/property disrupted along the way. forever has become more like "till death do us part...or after 3-5 years when i can no longer tolerate they way he drives/leaves the seat up/etc...i do" heh
now, should marraiges be unbreakable? no i dont think so, should they require fair cause for termination yes. abuse, neglect, REAL criminal actions, adultery, etc should all be just cause to end a marraige.
as for adultry being a crime, well...it may be a crime against marraige, but i hardly think putting people in jail for it will solve any problems, aside from the problems of enforcing such a law...and of course, to you arrest both parties, or only the married ones? ie if its a married woman and the single pool boy, did he commit a crime boinking her? what if its someone who doesnt know the other is married? good luck with that law. =P
get back to reality and remember that america is supposed to be the land of the (mostly) free.
gg with the ac post too, really shows your support of such a position.
So, prior to this judgement, which ISPs already just rolled over on their users and gave up identities to the RIAA?
And which ISPs have been fighting in Court and at least making an effort to protect their users?
When the government recognizes your "marriage", you have certain rights that others do not. The easiest one to explain is "next of kin". If your wife/husband is in an accident, the doctors will let you in to see her/him and you can sign any paperwork needed by the hospital.
The same if you die without leaving a will.
I would LOVE to hear what argument they were referring to as "silly"
anyone know?
The intent of the DMCA's notifcation mechanism, is that the ISP either has to take responsibility for the packets they are transmitting to the rest of the world, or pass the buck to whoever is responsible. In light of that, this ruling appears to subvert the intent of the law.
The issue shouldn't be about who owns a piece of equipment; it should be about who is responsible for that equipment's behavior. DMCA was intended to identify who is responsible for copyright infringement in cases where there is a "common carrier" in the mix. Treating P2P differently than hosting, doesn't make any sense.
This is a victory only by a perverted technicality, using a loophole. It does not mean that the courts have taken pirates' side. If this ruling stands, then the people who passed DMCA are just going to ammend and "clarify" the law.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Any comment yet from the Sinatra estate?
We want to defend our country, so it is a crime to sell national secrets to other countries.
If you want to defend marriage, then you make the things that are detrimental to marriage, crimes.
This is about The Defense of Marriage. This is not about The Defense of My Night Out With the Guys.
Violence predates the Judeo-Christion idea of God just as Marrige does. Marrige is a social solution to a social problem just laws against murder are.
Christ's cheerleaders should read more broadly I think.
That causes some of the responsibility to fall onto him. Don't let any president off the hook, until this law is gone. As GWB himself might say: you're either with us, or against us.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
most likely yes. Imagine how quickly the country would divide if GWB steals another election from the popular vote. Imagine a scandal involving DIEBOLD's electronic voting machines. Imagine another act of terrorism and then even our rights being taken away. I think this would be more than enough to start a civil war or at least mass civil unrest and terrorist acts commited by the american people.
Since the information about people sharing files was illegaly obtained, does that mean the people who have paid a settlement or are in the process of dealing with the RIAA can tell them to go F themselves?
excelent post; as an add on to your notes on adultry was it justified? Now before I get my throat jumped down about there being no justification for it- I'm going to say 'yes' there is. Alination of affection (IE; one party holding lovemaking ransom) as some sort of barganing chip, in my opinion is 'just' cause for adultry- of course the bigger question is; what is wrong with your relationship/psyce that one party has arrived at the conclusion that to get what they want then will deny themselves and there partner of something they both (presumabally) enjoy. Note: There is a big difference between alination of affection and just not being the mood, normally measured in monthes.
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
No way? I've never seen that. Under what pretense do they justify it?
What about all those folks sending in fake documents to Verizon to collect personal details for the purpose identity theft? This judgement ruins their business model. They have children too!
Jesus H, do we only have liberal Frenchmen modding today?
It looks to me like the appeals court might just have ruled that Verizon is a common carrier.I'm not at all sure this is a good thing. This is why.
I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, under U.S. law common carriers (like the phone company) are legally obligated to provide service to all comers at a reasonable price, and for any legal purpose. They cannot pick and choose their customers. In return, they are shielded from liability for what others do using their service. For example, the phone company isn't liable for fraudulent telemarketing calls because it is a common carrier.
I can think of one possible pitfall right now if ISPs are deemed common carriers. ISPs set their own rules for proper use of their networks -- these are called Authorized Use Policies (AUP) or Terms of Service (TOS). Violations of an ISP's AUP/TOS can and often do result in the violator being disconnected. The most common violators are spammers.
Thanks (NOT!) to the CAN-Spam Act foisted on us by our foolish and venal Congress and President, spam is legal in the United States as of January 1. :( I am no lawyer, but I do not think a common carrier can legally forbid use of its services for *any* legal purpose. So, if ISPs become common carriers, can they continue to ban use of their networks for spamming?
Even worse, if ISPs are deemed common carriers, can they block email that was sent in compliance with U.S. law?
Catherine
I think this could be done. If you can't conquer the enemy, join them.
A standarised fee added to your standard broadband fees, just like road tax in fuel prices. And legal access to all RIAA/MPAA copyrighted material. They are obligated to create a 100% valid, working copy of anything they release (may be allowed a week-two delay since shop appearance) in MP3/DIVX/whatever, and publish it on their official P2P server for everyone to download. And everyone who pays for network access, pays (proportionally to bandwidth) a little extra. Fees are collected through ISPs. And ISPs may provide "cheaper lines", P2P-free, for anyone not interested in P2P. The traffic on that networks monitored, or just P2P-specific services blocked on routers, so if you set up a dedicated webserver, you don't pay RIAA for its traffic.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Excuse me?
Bush can still incarcerate and torture citizen from other countries at will. Do you think it's not a human rights violation if it only affects others and not you?
I, for one, will not visit the US again. Ever.
It's called a democracy, my friend, so we need to hold the people accountable for the actions of their government. Yes it was Bush who signed those laws into power, but you US citizen didn't do anything against that and they didn't throw im out when he seized power illegally without being voted.
given the opportunity, people will steal.
Don't allow anyone under 18 to live somewhere unless there are exactly two adults of differing gender in the same house.
That would fix all of our social ills, right? I'm sure it would wipe out all mental disorder within a generation.
But don't the conservatives have the vast majority of the guns?
Grog fer the Star Chamber hath ruled in favor of yea lootin' the booty.
Uh, so citizen of other countries are not entitled to a fair trial? Is that what you are trying to say here?
Simply shooting people is not a complete violation of "everything that this nation stands for" as long as they are not US citizen?!
Sounds vaguely familiar (I'm German). The US truly are the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. A shining beacon of liberty and freedom!
Don't forget strike down the DMCA, the RIAA is nothing compared with the DMCA itself which must be destroyed.
No.. Anarchist, Libertarians, etc, have guns as well. Im not liberal or conservative. But I assure you, I have a gun, and will happily gun down conservatives or liberals should they try and enforce their crap upon me personally.
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.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Personally, I don't give a damn that two people of same sex want to live together and spend a life together and normally I wouldn't care if they got married.
But the reason I'm against it is because of the next big issue that will surface as a result of all this: child adoption.
I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that even if the parents are loving parents, that both being of the same sex would not have an affect on the child.
I can remember back to many moments of my childhood looking to my father and my mother and seeing how they contributed to the family unit and the way it impacted my life.
In adoption normally, they prefer to give a child to a home of a couple vs a single parent. Why is this? Is it because two heads are better than one? No, it's because of the affects of the maternal and paternal role have on our lives. Now if this rational of a loving couple is better than one loving single parent regarding adoption is true where do same sex couples sit in this hierarchy? Is it opposite sex couples, then same sex, then single parent? If same sex are viewed at the same level as opposite sex couples, then the original assumption regarding adoption is flawed and it's just that two heads are better than one.
Future Police State? Look around, the future is now!
a copy of the Court Opinion on PACER (in PDF)
RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services.
The DMCA passed the Senate with a 97-0 vote. Even if their replacements are anti-RIAA (not very likely), that leaves things at 95-2.
The founder of Protestantism was Martin Luther. He married once.
Henry VIII was a staunch Roman Catholic. He strongly disapproved of Protestantism and Martin Luther. He married, and after being unable to produce a male heir, broke with the Catholic church after the Pope refused him a divoce. He founded the Church of England, and the the concept of separation of church and state was accidentally born. I do not believe he ever married another woman. His daughter "Bloody Mary" gained the throne after his death.
Your point might have been insightful, if not for the fact that it is completely inaccurate. But Slashdot moderators don't care. They ranked you up anyway. Yay for disinformation.
You have GOT to be kidding me!!! Whether or not you support homosexual marriage is irrelevent. The fact is that the MA Supreme Court subourned the legislative process. The fact that the court (thinks they) can do this should be setting off red flags for every U.S. citizen! Courts have overturned referendums passed by the populace, over ruled laws passed by the Legislative branch for and generally stepped waaay outside the defined role of the Judicial branch in our government. This is a Bad Thing (TM) for our personal individual freedoms, just in case no one is paying attention.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
...according to Yoda
Padilla was designated a military combatant which means he might just as well be the enemy. This guy is a former gang member and was arrested while entering the country on his way back from Pakistan. In times of war the President is allowed to detain citizens as "military combatants" for the duration of the conflict.
This policy is not new and goes back to the founding of our country. FDR did it during WWII, Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, and i believe even George Washington used this power. There is a difference between an ordinary criminal, such as "Joe Blow the convenience store robber," and someone that tries to overthrow the government. The former are tried as civilians in civil court while the latter are tried as military combatants in military court.
This decision strips the president of powers that he was given since the founding of our nation and weakens his ability to protect this country as Commander in Chief. It will be an extremely sad day if this country is attacked again as a result of this court decision.
It's not like the government is going around the country and rounding up people as military combatants. So far there have been only two people arrested as military combatants, Padilla and John Walker, the guy they caught fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Should Walker, a man that was fighting against our troops, be released as well? Or should he be held as a prisoner of war, which is what he is? We have declared war on terrorists and these people should be held as prisoners of war, regardless of their citizenship.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Dude, I cannot BELIEVE how off-topic you dragged this conversation. PAGES and pages about gay marriage. +5 Troll for you.
-5 Idiot for anyone who moderated a single post in this thread as other than offtopic.
The court did not rule on the constitutionality of the subpoena process and left that question open. The court also said that there is a giant loophole that remains open. So, until the constitutionality question gets addressed, we're all still in a state of limbo.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
Here is the DC Appeals court opinion (in PDF): RIAA v. Verizon Internet.
You're a fucking nerd living in his parents bedroom with a fucking RED RIDER BB GUN that you had to sneak by your parents because they thought you'd shoot your eye out.
You PUSSY.
Keep in mind, the ruling did not prevent the RIAA from sueing your arse for making files available for download. It just got a lot more expensive (for the RIAA). They need to file an actual suit as opposed to the simple blackmail scheme they had going until now.
If you believe that being gay is a choice someone makes then there's no reason why they should have special rights because of this choice (gay marriage, etc.)
What is so special about the right to marry? It seems that almost everyone has it, except gays...
Also, about homosexuality being a choice:
Asuming you are a straight guy... Did you choose to not be turned on by men, or did it just happen that way? For me, I just get turned on by women, I didn't choose women, my "divining rod" did, I think the idea of choosing what would turn you on is rather hillarious.
Also, why would anyone choose to be gay in our society? Do you know anyone who feels like they are not hated by enough people, or feels they have too many rights?
Lastly, I have a question for you, and please respond, I have asked it of several people and I have never gotten an answer that makes sence, I hope you can explain the views of your side to me (I really would like to understand your thoughts)
How does it hurt you if gay people are aloud to marry? And if you are not personally harmed by them marrying, why work so hard to prevent them from doing so?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
I buy my music.
+1, funny.
What the fuck are you smoking? The purpose of the judicial branch is to fucking check the other two branches of government. When the legislature oversteps its bounds, its the fucking purpose of the judiciary to step in and make things right.
The system of checks and balances is what keeps this nation from being destroyed by idiots like you. By not giving any one branch total power, we help protect the health of the republic. You are a fucking tool.
Courts have overturned referendums passed by the populace, over ruled laws passed by the Legislative branch for and generally stepped waaay outside the defined role of the Judicial branch in our government.
Uh, actually, that is quite specifically the role of the judicial branch of the government. Ever hear of checks and balances? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Namely, their approach is you are guilty until proven innocent. This really sucks for those poor saps who are fingered by the RIAA as a theif to be proven innocent, only that person (or family) does not have the means to present themselves in court to proove their innocence. Therefore, they aren't left with much of a choice of action except to pay what they can (usually a hefty amount of their livlihood) and hope the RIAA will leave them alone.
Certainly there are people abusing the systems, but witch hunts have never been the solution. The RIAA also has not attempted to work with the P2P networks (to my knowledge) to resolve this is a civilized way. "Civil" to the RIAA is always followed by "Court". Just as I oppose Microsoft's business practices, I oppose the RIAA's and TicketMaster's and other monopolistic businesses that abuse their power.
Just because a monopoly exists doesn't mean I'm opposed to it straight away. Take the US Postal Service for instance. It goes without saying most people who send snail mail letters (not packages) use the USPS. In that way, the USPS is an effective monopoly. (do we not all go buy a bunch of 1 cent stamps when they bump up the cost of postage?) But aside from bumping up the postage three times in rapid succession in years past, they've been quite good about not *thoroughly* abusing their customers (some may argue when trying to send a package, but I'm talking about letters here).
In the end: does the RIAA have a right to sue copyright infringment? Yes. Do they even have a right to subpoena ISPs for the infringing user's contact information: Maybe (yes, under the Damn Merciless Corruption Act). Is their approach to this technology and even finding out the real infringers severly flawed? Hell yes. (a 12 year old, a Mac owner, and an old couple w/o a computer come to mind.)
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
... a "laser" is used to steal the original bits, and what is a "laser"? Why, it's light! I think the RIAA has a pretty good case here and it wouldn't be too shocking for them to announce an attack against the forces of light.
... but the nature of binary data ("good vs. evil") requires that the "laser" to momentarily turns itself off, then back on again ... in other words, data piracy requires a coordinated conspiracy between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.
It's worse that that. This so-called "laser" is also used to burn stolen data onto CD-R discs
-kgj
-kgj
I wish I had mod points -- you are right on. It is NOT the job of the judiciary to MAKE law -- it's the job to interpret the law and make sure it falls within the frame work of the constitution.
Outside of the MA court system, the 9th circuit is a prime example of this jucicial activism abuse. It's stacked liberal 2:1. That means any 3-judge panel is most likely going to end up 2:1 liberal. Talk about stacking the courts. They need to be more MODERATE. It shouldn't be surprising that 3/4's of all appealed 9th circuit judments that get accepted are overturned.
I'd also like to point out that it is NOT the job of the legislature to decide WHO gets to become a judge -- but to decide of they can/are qualified to do the job once nominated by the executive branch.
These are two outragous examples of two branches operating outside the separation of powers.
-jhon
So what does that mean? How do you get a ruling that says this garbage is unconstitutional? I read the following in the ruling but didn't understand it: "Because we agree with Verizon's interpretation of the statute, we reverse the orders of the district court enforcing the subpoenas and do not reach either of Verizon's constitutional arguments."
There was a funny Australian movie called The Man Who Sued God [imdb.com]. It's quite funny and worth watching... you guys already basically nailed the plot.
....
Once again, life imitates art
-kgj
-kgj
As this is the level of justice that almost entirely bought and sold this is not surprising at all.
No Comment.
Does anyone know of organizations out there monitoring P2P bandwidth usage? Basically, I would like to see if these court rulings have any effect on P2P users. I've been hearing there has been a dip in users since the whole RIAA/MPAA proceedings began. Any chance of seeing an upsurge in file trading on the popular networks like Kazaa or eDonkey?
It's WRONG for the legislative branch to do this -- on BOTH sides of the line. It's a violation of the separation of powers. I'm just surprised that the dems have taken it this far -- it's one thing to resort to this type of tactic now and then, it's another to use it as a means to STACK THE COURT. It's not THEIR job to do that. That power resides with the executive branch. If they don't like it, ammend the constitution. Don't be surprised that if this continues we see a case brought to the supreme court.
-jhon
What records do isps actually keep such as comcast and roadrunner. How can the RIAA prove you actually took anything?
Sorry its anon coward but knowing what is kept and what is not should be made available to the subscriber?
You are correct in #2; we're not sure about #1. #3 is definitely false, unless---like I said---you witnessed him, or someone who knows passed the knowledge to you.
Yeah, right.
This is the BEST Christmas EVER!!!
... and in the DRM, bind them.
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.
Ruling for gay marriage is progress? Being able to marry anything you want is a glimmer of hope? I assume now that marriage (at least in MA) doesn't have to apply to JUST a man and a woman that you intend to marry your hamster next spring? That's what it's going to mean, that you can marry anything you want. Marriage won't be any special, sacred institution anymore between a man and a woman. I've always felt that only the good ol' US of A can let gay and lesbians (a minority mind you) force the creation of new laws in this country regardless of the standards and morals of the majority.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Did anyone else read this part and hear Dennis Leary's voice saying it?
"Music in the digital age is being stifled. We want music in compressed format. We want our collection to be available at the click of a mouse. We want to be able to get new music off the internet. We want to have matchbook-sized MP3 players so we can toss those huge clunky CD players that only hold an hour music. We want the ability to search for new music and expand our tastes. We want to pay on a per-song basis instead of being forced to buy an album containing music we may not want."
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Downhill Battle is calling for the record companies to return the money they've gotten from the suits so far. How would you feel if you just coughed up $5,000 to the RIAA and now you find out they weren't even supposed to get your name?
Dear File-Swapping Pricks,
As your quivering excuse for brain-matter can probably already make out, this court decision is a major set-back for our world domination plans. However, this is not going to stop us. We have other means to discover who you are and sue you into oblivion. We have already employed Miss Cleo and we are willing to unleash her fury whenever we want to! Yes, Yes! Oh god, yes! You cannot hide from Miss Cleo when she picks your name randomly from a phone book.
We are also aware that there is a great deal of high-speed file sharing going on at your "LAN Parties". We will begin to infiltrate your so-called "LAN Parties", so that you cannot hide from us even from there! So, please ignore the balding lawyer taking pictures of your computer screens.
FEAR US!
The RIAA grows stronger by the day. No longer do we just sue people about music, but we have teamed up with SCO to protect their copyrighted information as well. Today, we are officially launching lawsuits against all those that dare share Linux Distros through Bit-Torrent, at "LAN Parties" or over any other sharing method!
We will continue to sue you until you learn that you cannot live without buying every CD that comes out, even if its not music that you like! Yes! You will give us all your money or you will suffer our wrath!
Sincerely,
David Bowie
and the RIAA
Gay marriage is between two consenting adults, I see no reason, other than the bible(which cannot be used to justify laws in the US), that it shouldn't happen . On top of this I have never seen an arguement against gay marriage that didn't rely on the fallacy that we have always done it so we should keep on doing it.
A blog about stuff.
We need to amend the Constitution to make sure that holy matrimony is only legal the way God intended - between one white man and one white woman.
The logic of extending the traditionally held notion that marriage was between a man and a woman to homosexual couples could also be applied to marriage between anyone.
Why is the state monkeying around in marriage to begin with? Well, maybe we could argue the case in incest, that it produces a higher order of genetic diseases, and is thus a public health concern. However, a couple could either screen their pregnancies and end the defects - no public health concern, Planned Parenthood makes a mint, everyone's happy - or they could remain childless.
By the same logic there is no legitimate problem with bigamy or poligamy either.
The logic was that it undermined the institution of marriage, which was soley created for procreation. If you don't buy that, then sure, all the other things make sense.
Yes, many couples used advances in contraception to render themselves barren and have childless marriages, but that really is not the point of marriage, and those couples really have no need of the institution, same as homosexuals.
The Dutch make up about 20% of the world's filesharing individuals
Yeah, the Dutch are very serious music fans. Your random small bar is likely to have thousands of dollars of high-end sound system professionally tuned to the room, and bartenders who are a serious about DJ'ing as serving beer. They particularly like American musics, from current pop to the most obscure and most historical. Combine this with a visual capacity which extends from the Golden Age through the present (particularly in architecture and design, as well as painting) and you can begin to wonder how they so well balance their mentality across the senses. A hint: much of their language use is ironic - they aren't quite so colonized by opinion perhaps, and so go more with their senses rather than stay blinded by what they think they know. Or maybe it's something they're smoking?
Note to RIAA: You can't convict me based on these thoughts which cross my mind. I am just a common carrier, and the origins and endpoints of these thoughts are elsewhere. I do not store them in this flesh.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Except that it is the job of the judiciary to intervene if legislation oversteps the power granted to the legislature. The MA court did not specifically legalize gay marriage. What it did was reject, on Constitutional grounds, a law banning gay marriage. It's a fine point, but an important one. It's part of the system of checks and balances. There are more checks and balances--the US Supreme Court can still override them on appeal.
In 500-1000 years, will people look back on the 20th century and see it as another dark age? It really wasn't that great of a century. The J.F.K. assassination (and probable coverup). Martin Luther King, Jr. The entire civil rights movement. The cold war. Aids. Ethnic cleansings. The constant ongoing wars. Now gay and lesbian rights are entering the front pages. Despite all our technical advancements, we are still living in the dark.
Let sweet Justice flow like a river!
Let sweet Freedom shine like the sun!
Gore said:
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
He did in the sense that dozens of other senators did. But the truth is the origins of the internet predate Al Gore in congress, so your defense is slight and makes Al seem even more petty and more of a liar.
As bad as bush is (and he is bad), gore is/was worse.
Under the laws the RIAA has been pushing through, Michael Jackson can demand the name and address of your 12-year-old son on hia say-so, without having to go through a judge.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Make fun of it all you want, but white people are smarter and more attractive than anyone else.
We don't think you should allow ugly dumb people to breed.
They need to be more MODERATE. It shouldn't be surprising that 3/4's of all appealed 9th circuit judments that get accepted are overturned.
And statisticts! Woo!
Your big, stinking lie was to omit the fact that 3/4 is the rate of overturning for all circuits, not just the 9th. So your 3/4th statistic is meaningless, and your implication that they make bad decisions due to liberal stacking is baseless.
Here's a
site that is clearly not a fan of the 9th Circuit court. According to their data, the 9th Circuit has had 18 of 24 cases overturned, or 75%. The rest of the circuits had a total of 41 of 56 cases overturned, or 73.2%. That's an average. Some circuits have an overturn rate of 100%.
Have a nice day.
The enemies of Democracy are
You've got to be kidding. Why is there a Bill of Rights? Surely so that legislatures are held in check by law. This is what we see the courts doing here -- reminding legislatures of their limits.
Just because they can claim the support of the minority of Americans that voted for them does not give legislators any power to over-rule the Constitution.
I, for one, am glad that the Courts are there to protect us from the corporate shills on Capital Hill.
Lawyers are supposed to learn something about ethics during their time in law school. If the RIAA's lawyers entered arguments are so patently groundless that a judge calls them "silly," I would like to see those jackasses fined for wasting the court's time and my tax dollars. How about a charge of creating a public nuisance?
I grew up with only ONE mother. LOTS of children do. Or ONE father. They grow up just fine. Christianity only needs one teacher.
I'm at a point now where I download most newly released movies that I want to see as SVCDs, watch them once or twice, then delete them. The ones that I like and want to own I buy the DVD when it comes out. I almost never go to the theater anymore because movies are almost $10 now for a ticket. A family of 5 to see a movie and get drinks/snacks runs up $75+. That's just ridiculous, especially with most of the movies they're making now are just junk.
I disagree that a court saying that all persons have equal legal rights (in this case same-sex couples) is subourning anything. The role of judicial is to act as a check and balance.
What is bad in this case is that there will be legislative backlash and pre-emptive strikes against similar pro-gay decisions or legislation in other states. Don't listen to people who are so afraid of equal rights for same-sex couples who claim the courts are going to far. All courts are saying is that same-sex couples should be able to have benefits, estates, legal rights... Hell, you should support this, the marriage tax will mean more in tax revenue.
"The fact is that the MA Supreme Court subourned the legislative process." - "Courts have overturned referendums passed by the populace, over ruled laws passed by the Legislative branch for and generally stepped waaay outside the defined role of the Judicial branch in our government."
Eh? There are certain laws that supercede other laws, such as constitutional superceding federal, federal superceding state, state laws superceding county and city ordinances. When a court strikes down a law, it's usually because the law itself is illegal in light of laws that supercede.
Without specific examples, your argument holds this much water: *drip..... drip..... drip.....*
You fucking Commie Homo!
1 way ticket to Gitmo on the way 4 U Deanie Babies!
to remove the word 'marriage' from the legal realm altogether. The word marriage has implications in almost every religion on the planet and those implications vary greatly from religion to religion and person to person. Let marriage be what it is to the people taking part in it without dictating what it is to them.
That means were free to create this 'thing' between 2 people whether they are straight, gay, religious, athiest, whatever. Our 'social binding' can have all of the economic benefits of today's marriage without the baggage. It will be well-defined and unabiguous and thus ends the debate.
But what do I know? I'm just an opinionated slash-bot.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
I don't get the spinning of his comments as not meaning "he didn't say he invented the internet" when his line was literally "I took the initiative in creating the Internet".
... it sure looks to me like he's saying he was the one doing the creating, but his "intent" may have been to say that his policies abetted others in creating the internet; that they were the creators- he merely assisted. [Nevermind that this is by and large untrue- the internet as we knew it as of 1996 was by and large the "fault" (heh) of:
The hangup is in the word "creating"
Microsoft with the release of Windows 95 which enabled home users buying computers to easily access the internet
Mosaic with their implementation of web browsers that had been the standard (until IE overtook Netscape)
The invention of the WWW and implementation of web sites that actually stored useful data; see how archie/gopher/veronica/etc. never really caught on as searching tools
Whoever was responsible for the rapidly declining price of Memory which enabled consumers to afford machines capable of web browsers. In addition to the rapid decline of memory prices in the mid 90s, the growth of processing speed was also a factor as well and speed increases in modem connections.
]
If that's what he meant, he should've said so and made this clear once the barbs came his way about his "invention" stuff. That way we could simply say "he misspoke" instead.
I respect snopes.com but this is 1 entry where they get it wrong.
I'd like to see the government as far out of religion as possible.
I'd like to see religion as far out of government as possible.
Now, all we have to do is deal with those "turdfuck rightwing ideological zealots who feel they have to force everyone into a particular belief system".
I think that a big chunk of the problem is that even the government tries to do it as a religion. I've been to a few "civil ceremonies" that still have the vows and rings and "you may kiss the bride".
It should be "Sign here and here and here, and you sign here and here and here. Both of you initial the pre-nup inclusion/exclusion statement. Now look at the camera and smile. *click* Here's your marriage license and here's your's."
The insurance rates are lower because married guys live longer and get sick less often than single guys.
For married women, there is no difference.
If a single guy and a married guy have the same insurance policy, the insurance company will make more money off the married guy.
Man, I thought you were black.
umm, NO. If a law is found to violate pre-existing laws, it can be overturned by the judiciary. Our judiciary is the only branch of our government that has worked as well as expected by our founding fathers. Meanwhile the legislative branch is controlled by corporate interests and mostly ignores what is good for the public (or even what the public wants, though the two are different). And the executive branch...geez.
The Mass court ruled on the constitutionality wrt the Mass constitution. The US Supreme Court has no standing. Only an amendment to the Mass constitution will be able to overturn the decision ... and it'll be years too late, probably. And they shouldn't overturn (maybe they shouldn't let breeders "marry" -- legally; restrict all state issues to "civil unions" and leave "marriages" to the religious where they belong).
Dude, what a fucking whiner. If conservatives are going to ignore our bill of rights and existing law when ruling on legislation, then its a fucking good thing there are fewer of them in the circuit courts. Our judicial branch has worked exactly as the constitution wanted it to. There was NOTHING wrong with these examples. Judges are supposed to overturn laws if they violate more basic laws (like the bill of rights).
If our founding fathers were alive today you'd call them bleeding heart liberals and try to prevent such revolutionary ideas as the bill of rights.
So take your stupid whining and go to hell.
That being said, the court was by no means legislating. A law existed which granted the LEGAL STATUS of marriage solely to a pairing of a man and a woman. The court found that this violated equal protection provisions in the state constitution. The real idiots in this whole thing are the people who made marriage a legal institution in the first place (with implications for taxation, immigration, insurance, and so forth), it should have remained nothing more than a civil contract. If an institution exists which confers special advantages to certain people but not to others, then it is going to be found unconstitutional by the courts.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
"It is NOT the job of the judiciary to MAKE law -- it's the job to interpret the law and make sure it falls within the frame work of the constitution."
Then perhaps it would be interesting to read the closing statement of the court's judgement in the case which this story is about.
From The Register:
"It is not the province of the courts, however, to rewrite the DMCA in order to make it fit a new and unforseen internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion picture and software industries. The plight of copyrightholders must be addressed in the first instance by the Congress; only the Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new technology."
The DMCA apparently doesn't cover illegal downloading of copyrighted material. Too bad for the RIAA and all those copyright holders. But it's a shame that these lawsuits and supoenas are necessary in the first place. If illegal downloaders would stop stealing the property of others in the first place, the copyright holders would not need to go after the lawbreakers.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
No, troll, that is not its purpose. The purpose of the Judicial branch is to interpret the laws and uphold the constitution. It is NOT their job to decide if it likes those laws or not.
who authored the Mass. Constitution in 1780 surely intended it to apply to Gay Marriage, LOL.
Come on... Modding the parent down for expressing his agreement with the grandparent post? WTF is up with that?
Exactly! 99% of the time a court overturns a voter initiative, it's because it was blatantly unconstitutional. Just because it's popular doesn't make it legal under the constitution. Not that I'm saying it's always a good thing when initiatives get overturned in court. California Prop 103 (a consumer revolt against the car insurance companies) was tied up in court for years thanks to the powerful insurance lobby. It wasn't overturned, but by the time it emerged from court, it was essentially toothless.
The point I was responding to was:
"Why is it that married couples can get joint health insurance that's significantly cheaper than 2 separate policies?"
I replied with the insurance data on why it costs less to insure a man/woman couple than it costs to insure a man and a woman who are not married.
So, you respond by pointing out that two policies cost more one policy with a spouse.
DUH! That was the point that the original poster made.
DUH! That was the point that I was illustrating with the insurance data.
Congratulations. You've managed to restate a point that was made by the original poster and that was supported by my post.
- Homer Simpson
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
"Or, put another way, ALL RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO GAY MARRIAGE ARE INVALID for this discussion. This is (or should be) a legal discussion, not a moral or religious one."
It is true that any religious establishment or institution has no place directly dictating to the state any law or policy regarding marriage, or anything else for that matter. However, states have the right to define what marriage is, and the will of the people, including religious people, factor into this: they elect the ones who make the laws. If enough people in a given state for WHATEVER reason (religious or otherwise) don't like the idea of a state laws that includes homosexual marriage, then the state legislators are likely to keep marriage a heterosexual arrangement. Individual citizens may like or dislike the idea of homosexual marriage for any reason they like, including religious reasons. This is perfectly legal and proper. And religious people have the same right to lobby their legislators as anyone else.
If the US Supreme Court ever rules that disallowing homosexual marriage violates Equal Protection, then all this will change, unless the Constitution is amended.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
I think this may be the most deeply nested comment in the thread. It seemed like a good place to point out that the original article dealt with an RIAA court defeat. Interesting as some of the above comments may be, they are completely offtopic.
So that would make you American euro-trash. Time passes slowly when you're an idiot.
Again, you ignore the real people who are deprived of money when you don't pay for their music.
What does the length of copyright law have to do with downloading current music? They've actually been pushing release dates forward because they keep getting downloaded online.
"Sufferin' succotash."
It would also be interesting to note that such a judgement came from OUTSIDE the 9th circuit court -- from a less reviewed court. The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia illustrating that if a decision is to fair, expect it not to come out of the 9th circuit.
And as long as the new law follows proper court procedure as dictated by the constitution, then we should have no problem.
This is, after all, what we've been asking for, yes? It's certainly what I want; a more articulate and just copyright law. Let the illegal filesharers pay the piper for the injustice they've done, but make sure the process is nice and legal.
fs
Who cares who controlled the house and senate? No senators voted against it. [url]http://www.educause.edu/pub/wu/1998/19980519. html#0[/url]
An RIAA executive said this new "John Doe" process would be more intrusive for individuals, not less, since the organization would no longer be able to contact potential lawsuit targets and settle before filing an official suit.
Any suit can be settled "out of court," so to speak, prior to the judge banging his gavel.
The President is no longer allowed to hold US Citizens on US soil indefinately and without charges...
Hurray! Now maybe you can do something about all those non-US citizens you're holding on Cuban soil indefinitely and without charge? They're human too, you know.
I see no reason, other than the bible(which cannot be used to justify laws in the US)
Except that the Bible is used already for marriages which justifies the union of hte man and woman in the US.
Btw, lots of things can be between consenting adults but the courts need to realize that they need to uphold a certain level of standards within society. Without laws there is chaos.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
I mean, the Phone companies don't get sued and subpeona'd for their users do they? And we all know that criminals use telephones just as much as regular people. Not that I'm comparing criminals to piraters, just that a company is not liable for it's users right?
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Speaking of morals, I think I would be morally obligated to kill you since you are such a bigot.
Small minds like yours do not deserve to survive and it is unethical for you to continue to steal resources from those of us who are not so narrow minded just to allow you to contine to exist to spread your ignorance.
not in the context of the state, marriage in the eyes of the state has nothing to do with the bible.
ever read the constitution? 1st amendment?
I dont see any problems allowing whatever relationship consenting adults want to have. Not restricting the interactions of concenting adults will certainly not lead to no laws. laws are, or should be, for protection from other in cases where they wish to do some harm, and the illegality of concensual relations between adults has no rational basis.
A blog about stuff.
Ther are more informative articles at FOX news and CNN. I think it's a good decision since it doesn't allow people to subponae personal information outside a lawsuit, which implies a judges approval, althou IANAL.
Vote for Pedro
RIAA seem to have even started going for BBS's and FTP's as support for their claims to make ISP's leave out info about P2P users. Fortunately, the court didn't swallow that bait as they had already shown that P2P programs didn't violate the DMCA. The court also noticed that the historic papers about FTPs and BBSs that were discussed was concerning hacking those sites and whether site owners should be liable for this. (I'm sure many of you recall this, it was discussed a bunch of years ago) In other words, some documents completely irrelevant to the case regarding if ISP's should be liable to P2P users transmitting (not storing) data via their routers.
It's far reaching stuff like these that makes it feel like RIAA really has no case and they're just clinging onto the little they've got, trying to twist the law to their advantage.
Quote:
C. Legislative History
In support of its claim that 512(h) can - and should - be read to reach P2P technology, the RIAA points to congressional testimony and news articles available to the Congress prior to passage of the DMCA. These sources document the threat to copyright owners posed by bulletin board services (BBSs) and file transfer protocol (FTP) sites, which the RIAA says were precursors to P2P programs. We need not, however, resort to investigating what the 105th Congress may have known because the text of 512(h) and the overall structure of 512 clearly establish, as we have seen, that 512(h) does not authorize the issuance of a subpoena to an ISP acting as a mere conduit for the transmission of information sent by others. Legislative history can serve to inform the court's reading of an otherwise ambiguous text; it cannot lead the court to contradict the legislation itself. See Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 147-48 (1994) (''[W]e do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear'').
(...)
Furthermore, such testimony as was available to the Congress prior to passage of the DMCA concerned ''hackers'' who established unauthorized FTP or BBS sites on the servers of ISPs, see Balance of Responsibilities on the Internet and the Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act: Hearing on H.R. 2180 Before the House Subcomm. on Courts and Intellectual Property, Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1997)
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Morals? Well if we follow the morals of the church you're right about adults not being able to marry adults of the same sex. OBVIOUSLY the moral thing to do is to marry children of the same sex. I mean the Catholics have been doing it for years.
i don't understand your beef.
* the courts looked at a law and a part of the MA constitution.
* the courts decided the two were at odds (to me it's pretty clear they're right about that)
* since constitutions supercede laws, the judges *pointed out* the fact that the law was unconstitutional
in fact, the courts didn't even directly strike down the law (which, as i understand it, is usually the case with an unconstitutional law); rather, they gave the legislature a (limited amount of) time to write a NEW law, which would hopefully be consistent with the constitution.
look, you or your neighbors can hate gay people all day long. or you can love them, and say that gay marriage is wrong for some other reason. but to some of us, it's clear that discrimination against homosexuals is (not only wrong but) unconstitutional. our constitutions normally give protection against unreasonable discrimination.
the only thing you and your neighbors can do about it is to change the constitutions. some states have already done this (including mine, Alaska). in the end, it seems clear to me that the supreme court will interpert the US constitution the same way other courts have interperted it, and state constitutions: to say that discrimination is unconstitutional. that's why your cronies are trying to pass a marriage amendment. i'm not terribly sure that you'll convince two thirds of both houses of congress and three quarters of the states that think so bigoted, though. good luck.
"Ok other *THAN* the fact that..."
it's not that the difference bothers me so much, it's just that the difference is so TRIVIAL it's surprising anyone makes the mistake
An important point is that the RIAA loses the ability to cherry pick the defendents BEFORE it files a lawsuit. One may hope they sue the son/daughter of some legislators or CEOs of some companies in their Jane/John Doe lawsuits, so this issue can be brought to a head with Congress.
i download via kazaa light constantly
(kisses usb drive loaded with 60 Gigs of mp3s, kisses verizon modem)
but mostly non-pop stuff, so i never really thought i was in trouble
i knew the riaa was going after britney/ justin downloaders
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if looked at from a little further out. it seems to me that the ruling simply opened the door for an ammendment to the dcma that might be a lot more horrible than something written 5+ years ago.
in regards to verizon unable to police it's network, it's possible something could be put in motion forcing isp's to monitor their networks. i'll admit i don't know if it's possible technically to not only read (and probably store at least temporarily) but interperet the data to such an extent that not only meaning, but intent can be determined. the implications are a little staggering for freedom of speech advocates as it creates a net for politically incorrect voices eventually. keep an ear out for either, there darker days than these.
The DMCA didn't contemplate P2P architectures as the judges' ruling notes below. This means the RIAA needs to go back to Congress to implement laws that address P2P. The question then becomes will people get busy and organize to push back? Click The Vote is ready when you are ;)
... The Congress had no reason to foresee the application of [the DMCA] to P2P file-sharing, nor did they draft the DMCA broadly enough to reach the new technology when it came along..."
source "...P2P software was not even a glimmer in anyone's eye when the DMCA was enacted," Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote in the decision. "Furthermore, such testimony as was available to the Congress prior to passage of the DMCA concerned 'hackers' who established unauthorized FTP or BBS sites on the servers of ISPs.
In one breath you abuse the corporations for outsourcing your jobs, and in the next you condone piracy. It is your own faults that you are ending up out of the job. I'd even go as far as to say it's poetic justice.
The corporations of this world have every right to protect their investments in every way possible.
By the way the current statistice show that 80% of a companies earnings go to the staff, so all this piracy should lead to about 40% of you loosing your jobs or getting pay cuts and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
Along with a few very well-put replies to your post, I'd like to add another thought.
In the case of the "arts", and in this specific case, music - I don't necessarily understand why we should "care that some human beings paid for a studio and recorded the music for a record label that distributed it for them"?
Perhaps the entire process is twisted? Look at it this way: Someone who chooses a profession of making music is a big risk-taker. Instead of doing what most of us do to earn money (accepting someone's agreement for payment in return for doing a specific type of labor for them), they opt to create music, betting/hoping that the public will enjoy it enough to pay them for it. They're not providing a tangible good, and not even anything one could reasonably describe as a "necessity" or "needed service". It's simply a form of entertainment.
People with the notion that "artists *deserve* to be paid for their work" are simply wrong! They don't *deserve* anything, other than the right to freedom to compose anything they like and freedom to record it. Their music stands (or falls) on its own merit. If it's really good, then yes - they stand a good chance of profiting from it. If they can do that consistently, they can make a living of it. But to say they're automatically owed monetary compensation is ridiculous.
If I sit around and paint a bunch of paintings, that doesn't mean I deserve to profit from their sale - no matter how much I spent on paint and supplies. Maybe nobody likes my artwork enough to pay for it, and they'd only hang it up if it was given to them for free?
That's how the arts should be. Make music because you enjoy doing it. If you really have talent, profit will likely follow (but there's nothing saying it must). It may cost you quite a bit and then you lose it all, too. Real musicians make music because they *need* to do it. Wanna-be's make music because they think they can "get rich" from it.
Copyright infringement, by federal statute, is the violation of any one or more of a copyright owner's exclusive rights in a copyrighted work. 17 USC 106 lists most of them. It includes making copies (this is a very old right which helped originate the term copyright). Other rights in 17 USC 106 include the right of distribution, the right of public performance, the right of public display, and the right of adaptation (the right to make derivative works). 17 USC 602 also adds a right of import in certain circumstances.
Can I get an amen?
"That's what I was saying was rediculous."
Say whatever you want to, the statistics show that married guys live longer and get sick less than unmarried guys.
"If you claim that married couples are healthier and live longer... hmm let gays get married and they will most likely be more healthy and live longer. Seems the insurance companies would love that."
Ooooh, you've made another error there. I didn't say married COUPLES, I said married GUYS live longer than unmarried guys and get sick less often than unmarried guys.
I also said that the statistics for women don't change between married and unmarried.
Maybe married gays(note the "a") would live longer and be sick less than unmarried guys(note the "u"). But I'm not aware of any statistical studies about married gays yet.
"Or are you going to stand there and say that the benefit if living in a monogomous relationship is somehow limited to a male-female interaction."
I'm going to say that there haven't been any studies yet on long-term, monogamous male-male or female-female relationships.
"The point you were trying to refute was "married gay people pay an order of magnitude more than straight people while single people of either orientation pay similar amounts""
Ooooh, you've made another error. The point I was responding to, and this is a direct quote was:
"Why is it that married couples can get joint health insurance that's significantly cheaper than 2 separate policies?"
In fact, I cannot find that statement you've quoted anywhere in this thread.
Ooooh, you've made a third error.
"You refuted it by saying "married people live longer and therefore SHOULD cost less""
Oooooh, a 4th error. I cannot find that quote which you claim I posted anywhere in this thread. Maybe you're thinking of a different person?
"So... by that reasoning... gay people who ARE married should cost less, right?"
Again, I am not aware of any statistical studies of those situations. You seem to have a problem understanding statistics and insurance.
"My best friend (a woman) is married (ceremony, but without legal recognition) and they have been together for almost 15 years and raised 3 kids. They pay 6x the amount of a straight couple in insurance though neither of them has made a single claim other than basic checkups since they had kids 15+ years ago. Sure it's anecdotal, but at least it's true."
Based upon the context of this discussion, I'm going to guess that you're talking about a female-female relationship there.
Now, let's see what I had previously posted about the insurance statistics on females.
"For married women, there is no difference."
I think your agenda interfering with your reading comprehension or something. I have no idea where you're pulling those quotes you've used from.
Going to an art sale, and let's say an artist is there trying to sell his work. You say you love a particular painting, so you get your camera, snap just the coastline in bottom left of the picture that really is only part of the picture you like, pay him a fraction of the cost of the painting, thank him and walk away.
Now imagine what thoughts are going through his head? Might he care? maybe, maybe not. A REAL artist will, because he created the painting as a whole, and even though he technically got 'equivalent compensation' for the portion you took, you only took a portion of the whole. No loss to him, but he made some quick $ off of it. A shallow artist wouldn't care. A real artist would.
If an artist releases an album he intends to be heard as one piece, it's NOT your right to only want a piece of it without getting the whole. The way he intended it to be sold is the way you should buy it. Is there any direct consequence? sure, maybe not. But you -are- doing a disservice to the artist by not experiencing the whole that he intended you to experience. IF the artist decides to sell the songs individually on say iTunes, then go ahead, get'em all you want... but until then, the only way you SHOULD get the songs is the way intended by the artist. And usually you can tell if the songs are supposed to be heard together or if it doesn't really matter.
I dunno, now I'm just rambling.
so while it makes sense to be able to listen to one song rather than a whole album, it doesn't make sense to try to apply that idea to paintings.
or you could say that a painter had painted 10 paintings, but you only liked one and only bought that one. that's a closer analogy, but again, not perfect.
No offense, but it *is* the judiciary's role to make some law. As all courts follow the rules and rulings set down by previous courts all rulings made by courts are, in effect, law.
IIRC the MA court ruled about the scope of a law that is not terribly specific about what it entails. The MA court merely clarified what the existing law covers.
They also need to file blindly, which means the possibility of hittng someone embarassing, such as a music executive's child, or a Senator's.
None taken and you make an interesting observation. One with which I disagree.
Until recently, never in the history of american jurisprudence has "marriage" been defined as anything OTHER than between a man and a woman. It has been some courts which have decided to "expand" the definition beyond what was originally accepted to allow for social engineering from the bench.
This the very same mind-set which allowed a US District Court to declare the boy scouts a religious originization (on par with the Catholic Church, the Hare Krishna's, and Islam) because they require an affirmation of some deity -- ANY deity (say the "Earth Mother"). Then, once declared a religious orginization, the judge could "social engineer".
"Clarify" should not include re-writing definitions or apply arbitrary definitions or use the most openly BROAD interpretations to essentially "make" or "unmake" law. Part of the job of the federal appeals court (and state appeals courts) is to determain not just the LETTER of the law, but also the intent of the original FRAMERS of the law.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the RIGHTS ad PRIVILEGES enjoyed by married couples to NON married couples -- but to call that marriage is wrong. It's also wrong for the court systems to try and FORCE it down the throats of americans when it is most unwanted. Let the legislators (the representatives of the PUBLIC) make law should the people want it -- not justices forcing laws on people who DONT want it.
I'm not a lawyer, and not terribly up to speed with marriage law. Personally, I think it is a reasonable question to ask if the intent of the framers was to restrict marriage to that of a male/female monogamy. Unfortunately I think you'll find that there are many many marriage laws, and the intent was different for each.
Personally, I think that extending the rights and privileges is the least that should be done. Calling it marriage probably the right thing to do. And in the end, I expect the judiciary to usher that change, because the legislators haven't been representatives of the public for a long time now.
Your comment "And in the end, I expect the judiciary to usher that change" is a frightening prospect. One where the people no longer have the ability to make law -- through their representatives. One where law is FORCED upon them by a non-elected "enlightened" and "benevolent" federal ruling class. It's not their job. And to have them *DO* that job is to undermine our form of government.I think it is ALWAYS a reasonable question to ask the intent of the framers. Again, in this, it is not unreasonable to believe that the framers, who pretty much all were christian, would (A) not consider marriage anything but between a man and woman and (B) would object to any other such union.
The next question we need to ask ourselves, does this violate the 14th amendment (the equal protection clause)? Many would say no -- as any gay man or woman who decided to marry (a woman or man, respectivly -- someone of the OPPOSITE sex) would enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other man married to a woman or woman married to a man.
Marriage is a CHOICE, not an obligation and not defined by birth or incident. The individual chooses not to marry (i.e. take a spouse of the oposite sex).
Me personally, I would argue that same sex relationships should be provided the same rights/privilages of marriage -- yet I would object to calling it marriage. "Social Union" works for me. "Domestic Partnership" also works. They could also extend to non-gay relationships -- say two women or men living together in their old age.
We say "she" when refering to females... we say "he" when refering to males. Why would it be such a leap to say "marriage" for heterosexual legal unions and "domestic partnerships" for same-sex/plutonic legal unions? As a country BUILT on compromises (re: 3/5's compromise), I think that's a pretty damn good compromise.
To me, the problem is not so much that they're appropriating the names of people doing the file-swapping, but that they're subpoenaing names without actually establishing a case and they're asking for massive lists of names which include many people not associated with the file-swapping. As for me and my house, I will admit to having occasionally downloaded music. Part of it is that whole "free beer" thing. *wry grin* I'm of Scots heritage. I'm cheap. Part of it's also that I have a fairly eclectic taste in music. I tried for 6 months to find a commercial way to buy Nuit de Folie, a song by Debut de Soiree before finally just getting it off of Kazaa. It's less a moral stance for me and more of a practical thing.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
So, how is the judiciary not representatives of the public?
They're not elected directly, no. Then again, neither are our legislators technically.
The federal judiciary are appointed, not elected. If they stay within their defined roll as layed out in the constitution, this is a GOOD thing. When the principle of separation of powers begins to be violated, it becomes dangerous.
The legislators are elected directly by the people, both TECHNICALLY and ACTUALLY. I'm not sure how you can say that our legislators are not directly elected. Please explain.
You are a disgrace to humankind. Do the world a favor and commit suicide now.
Wrong. It is the job of the judiciary to make law -- America is a common law country. Duh.
Marriage won't be any special, sacred institution anymore between a man and a woman.
blah blah blah blah
Hello? Where have you been? No-fault divorce? Hollywood two week marriages? Arranged unions for political reasons? Henry IIIV and his eight wives? Marriage has never been a sacred institution, deal with it.
ok then... screw any historic debates where 'examples' had to be made... why even have the term "for example"? I mean, all they're doing is making an analogy as an example...
Yes analogies can never be perfect examples, because the only perfect example is the original situation itself. That doesn't negate the use of analogies to make a point... not at all!
Well, that settles it then. You said "Duh". You MUST be right!
We'll totally disregard the principle of the separation of powers. We'll ignore the constitution. We'll blow off Justice John Marshall regarding the judiciary's role in INTERPRETING the law. You said "Duh", for christsake! You MUST be right!
We'll ignore the last role the judiciary has played the first 200 years or so as one of strict constructionists in favor of the most recent swing to loose constructionists -- all because you said "Duh". Mighty powerful word, that "Duh".
You want to talk conlaw? Sure - See Art. III, S. 2 - "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in Law or Equity." Equity courts began in Englad when royal and legislative law were insufficient to handle problems. The US is a Common Law country.
Remember, we're discussing the MA homosexuality cases. These could easily be analyzed under the Equal Rights amendments (Indeed, they have been this summer, when the USSC overturned TX's antisodomy law). So your argument is moot - the court would be interpreting the Constitution as expounded by the SC. Duh.
Never said they can't have them but don't make it look like the state is endorsing the behavior though. If the state endorses it then where do you draw the line? As I said, it just means that I can marry an animal now if I wanted to if they aren't going to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
It is clear in that it does not affect religious union or compel any church to marry any couple (same by the way as with heterosexual marriage).
It is also clear that the decision is specifically concerned with the civil aspects of marriage (which are the only aspects under the jurisdition of the state anyway).
As for forcing beliefs on others, it is my observation that the principal opponents of this decision are indeed certain churches who are lobbying hard for a constitutional ammendment. (Being as it is fairly clear that a majority of the residents of MA favor this change I doubt that that will be passing.)
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Read the decision, and the dissenting opinions, all of which are distinct in delineating what is and is not the court's defined role.
Interpreting Laws (and sometimes) refferenda are very much the role of the courts. In this particular instance it is the MA SJC court, which like the US Supreme Court gets to determine questions pertaining to the Commonwealth's constitution.
As for the question of who I should be paying attention to with respect to my individual freedoms I personally place far higher faith in the courts than I do our legislatures, which in my experience routinely pass bad (in the sense of unconstitutional, ambiguously worded .....) statutes.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD