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.
[...] 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,
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
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.
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.
What does GWB have to do with it? The DMCA was signed by you man Clinton.
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.
"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
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.
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 point is, these subpoenas are issued with little specificty and the targets of them don't find out about them until their ISP informs them. If you are being accused of a crime, you should have the right to discover what the accusations are and to defend yourself. Apart from the rather trollish fact that you compare the copying of music with serious sexual interference with kids, a child molester would be formally charged with a crime before being commanded to appear in court. So he gets a chance to defend himself. The RIAA subpoenas didn't allow that luxury to the targets of them...
...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.
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.
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?
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.
So Verizon didn't come through with shining colors, but at least the Rediculous Industry Assoc. of America to a hit too.
Keep in mind that that was the trial judge that stated that, not the appelate judges. It was the trial judge's original ruling that was overruled on appeal.
let me know.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 sacrament of marriage (which by definition can only exist between a man and a woman)
[flame on]
The sacrament of marriage, okay, fine I suppose I can accept that. However, the dispute isn't over sacramental unions, it's over civil unions.
What really gets me about this issue is the right-wing's constant harping about "defense of marriage" (even going so far as to pass a law called the "Defense of Marriage Act." You want to preserve marriage? Outlaw divorce. And start by arresting all the members of congress who've had affairs or divorces.
[/flame off]
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.
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?
There have been. A couple of times. The record industry has lost them. The result? A slap on the wrist, and no real change.
Sounds kinda familiar, dosen't it?
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.
The article isn't as clear as it could be on this point: the trial judge who initially ruled against Verizon said that, not the three-judge panel who overturned the decision. But the comment by the trial judge brings up a deeper problem that is facing the US judicial system and, I would imagine, judicial systems around the world. We need judges who can specialize and then hear cases that fit their specializations. This judge obviously didn't have a great deal of knowledge about the inner workings of ISPs and the internet in general, because his comment that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint" is completely illogical. It makes perfect sense from a policy standpoint. As technology gets more and more involved and lawsuits/trials get more and more complicated, we need judges who we know will have a grasp on the situation, not someone chosen at random who may only use the internet once a week to check his AOL email account.
There are no lack of role models for kids of both genders. Gay men and lesbian women don't live in vacuum with only people of one gender. There are aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, teachers, friends, etc. That is the worst arguement I've ever heard. Your arguement also implies that a single father or mother also can't raise children.
If gay marriage bothers you, there is an easy solution: Don't marry someone of the same gender! Other than that, it should have no effect on you. If gay adoption makes you sick there is another easy solution: Don't let a gay couple adopt your kids! Once again you can live your life without it having any effect on you.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
These universities are stupid. By engaging in any kind of content control, i.e. saying "You're not allowed to run a P2P application," they are both admitting that they are aware of the fact that there is piracy going on on their network and also accepting responsibility. They're giving up "common carrier" status and taking on immense shared liability. By working so hard to keep "common carrier" status, ISPs can blissully say "hey, it's none of our business what our customers use our networks for, we have no idea what's going on" and avoid any kind of liability.
The RIAA suit about subpoena power was not about going after individual uploaders, it was about dragging big wealthy ISPs (competitors of AOL, which is also a giant media company, at least it was) into the liability circus and putting them out of business through litigation. That way, AOL could be big again.
The mere fact that Universities snoop their networks makes them partially liable for the illegal stuff that goes on. Knowledge of any illegal act makes you responsible for reporting that act to the authorities. If you witness a crime, you're technically required by law to roll over on everyone involved.. anything else is obstruction of "justice"
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
George Clinton had nothing to do with the DMCA.
Move along... nothing to see here.
This space for rent.
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.
Settle down there fruit cake. A little backgound information for you. It was Bill Clinton that signed the DMCA into law. Yes I'm aware that it was passed by a Republic controlled House and Senate, but the buck stops with the president. Clinton had veto power, he could have stopped the bill from ever becoming law and he opted not to. Both Republicans and Democrats are respondible for the DCMA and for it's abuses. There are RIAA / MPAA / DCMA advocates on both sides of the isle (Frits Hollings springs to mind on the Democratic side). There are also those on both sides of the isle that oppose the abuses by the RIAA. Norm Coleman (Republican - MN) is having hearings in the Senate on the RIAA tatics.
The bottom line is that both sides are responsible for the DMCA. Peddle your bull shit somwhere else.
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.
I don't get your point. How is this any more "abusive" than what can happen now? A guy and a girl living together, one has a job with health insurance. They get married and the slacker other gets cheap healthcare. How is that any better than the situation you described?
If you're against gay marrage, then don't marry a gay person. Other than that, why should it bother you?
"Everyone has the right to marry, provided that their partner is of a different gender..."
That's like saying everyone has freedom of speech as long as they are Republicans. In today's society, marriage has financial, legal, and social benefits attached to it. These benefits are not contingent on producing offspring (though that can have different benefits). Marriage is a legal recognition that two people have chosen to commit to each other in financial, social, and legal ways and have common interests in these areas (such as owning a home, sharing credit and debt, legal guardianship of children, etc.).
There is no argument that can explain why this should only apply to couple made up of a man and a woman. The only thing this provides you with is, in some cases, the potential for offspring. However, not all marriages produce children or will ever, such as the infertile, women past menopause, or those who just don't want to have children. Also, gay couples can have children, though perhaps not a genetic offspring of both (adoption, in vitro fertilization, surrogates, etc.). And that isn't to say that they will never be able to. The potential exists to artificially combine genes of a gay couple to produce an offspring. (Lesbians could only have girls, however.)
If gay couples are to be denied marriage because they cannot directly produce offspring (now), then why aren't all other marriages that can't, or won't? It doesn't hold water. The point is, some people are being denied benefits that others are being given. That is not equal rights at all.
And to clarify, before any confusion, I am not gay and don't have any gay friends (that I know about), though I have had a few gay acquaintences. I'm just cursed with a love of reason and logic, and there's no reason or logic behind denying gays the right to marry.
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
But P2P technology is not radically different from, say, hosting an FTP server on your home computer. Basically, a P2P network is simply a long list of active file servers, with some added search and partial-download perks. It helps the file searcher work around problems such as firewalls and DHCP addresses, which are usually associated with home-user ISPs. Point-to-point file transfer software existed when the DMCA was signed, and had for many years. It just wasn't mainstream.
My point here is that I don't think the ruling would have changed if P2P existed in 1998, since in a way, it did. Verizon is still not liable for the copyrighted information stored on home users' computers, even if they are sharing that information with the world via a public FTP site.
Most home-user ISPs have clauses in their contracts which prohibit running servers from a home computer (unless that right is bought specifically as a service), and there may come a day when P2P like KaZaA and WinMX are ruled to be "servers," since members of the general public can access the files. So Verizon may have to stop allowing such "file servers" on their network, according to their home user contract, but they are still not legally responsible for the content ON the servers, and therefore cannot be forced to give up names.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
Why does everyone have to keep excusing themselves from being gay while defending human rights? It defeats the purpose.
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
That sounds like an argument FOR gay marriage.
Already certain companies give benefits to life partners and are in theory vulnerable to the scenario above. Allowing gays to marry would remove that "loophole" and would put gays and straights on equal footing. (that is, marriages of convenience could occur but there is a clear legal process instead of this hazy "life partner" designation)
Congratulations: you're clueless.
That happens now. It's called a "marriage of convenience". Maybe we should mandate that people can only get married if they "love" each other, hmmm? Maybe you'd like to build the "love" detector to enforce this? Get the fuck out with this "life partners" bullshit. Either everyone has a right to marry, or nobody does OR marriage is for love / godliness / what-the-fuck-ever only and NOBODY gets any special secular benefits like lower insurance, healthcare, etc.
I know you haven't said anything about it so I'm not laying into you personally on this next point, but this goes hand in hand: the idea that we should amend the constitution to ban gay marriages.
What the fuck? We should amend the CONSTITUTION to DISCRIMINATE against people? How convenient! While we're at it, I'd like to amend it so that anybody with an IQ of less than 130 can't vote. I'd also like to see an amendment that anybody who has a religious affiliation can't be part of the government or have any say in it. I'm sure the backers of this amendment idea are all going to jump right up and support me, right? What's that? It wouldn't be fair to discriminate against people based on their choices or on the way they were born? Oops.
Congratulations to all the people who support this ridiulous amendment notion: you're all idiots.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
"Christian" tradition? Do you live in a cave?
People of Jewish faith get married (hello, *Jesus Christ*'s parents were married). People of Islamic faith get married. ATHEISTS get married.
Noone's saying gays should be allowed to get married in a Catholic church -- that's for Catholics to decide (for example). What they're saying is that the LEGAL STATE of marriage should extend to gay couple as well as straight ones.
I've yet to see a logical objection to that premise. All attempts should consider *in particular* that an atheist, straight couple is perfectly entitled to get married in all 50 states.
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.
When you can show how an atheist heterosexual marriage should be allowed but gay marriage should not, you'll have my attention. Reproductive capability is clearly irrelevant, as it's not a prerequisite for heterosexual marriage.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
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
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
From the article:
It would appear the argument that the court found silly was, the "perceived" liability the ISP has with regards to music piracy because the pirated music is downloaded over their systems.
I can see how the Court would view this as silly. I would have ruled it as asinine, personally. Some of the counter arguments were (probably):
In all of these cases, unless you can prove the malice, I think the answer is a resounding NO! Why then should ISP's be responsible for the illegal acts of its subscribers, for which they (ISP) have no specific knowledge of even the occurence of such acts? They shouldn't be. If Verizon has reason to believe that you, the subscriber, are using their services to commit crimes; they will cancel your account and turn you over to the authorities. Verizon takes the position that its subscribers are law-abiding and then handles the exceptions. The RIAA would like the ISPs to take the position that all susbsribers are law-breakers, and need to prove otherwise. While this isn't exactly spelled out, it is a reasonable conclustion to draw.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
Not all arguments against same sexed marriage are religous based. Here's three that aren't:
- The primary purpose of a marriage is to grant legal status to a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage.
- Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
- Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
I have not made up my mind on the subject of same sexed marriage. To me, it isn't an imporant issue .
I would like to throw in a tiny factual statement, though: marriage existed before Christians did. There are many married people in the US (and *gasp* the world) who support the idea of marriage and are not Christians. Marriage may be "sacred" to Christians. Beef is sacred to Hindus. Should we pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting McDonalds? "Eating beef? That's just sick."
I disagree with you on three points:
The idea of marriage is used in Christianity, but it is used in many religions and cultures. Most of the concepts in Christian marriage come from Christianity's parent religion: Judaism. It, like so many other "Cristian Values" are not in any way unique to Christianity. They tend to be general societal norms.
And I would also argue with your "Marriage, by definition, can only be between a man and a woman" statement. This is your definition.
And finally, I can see that you simply do not understand how children are raised across this country. There are so many children that are being raised by single parents. I would agree that an ideal environment for children would have multiple caregivers, but I disagree strongly that this environment must be only one man and one woman.
If you look at the societies with the healthiest families they most often have extended families. Most often this is associated with the phrase "It takes a village to raise a child". I would argue that two women or two men who love each other raising a child together are going to be far better role models than most (but not all) single parent situations.
I think you are simply too blinded by the way you were raised/indoctrinated to be able to see what really makes a family work. But I respect your right to disagree with me.
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."
Nor is there an argument that says it should apply to couples. If gay marriage is OK, why not polygamy? After all, it's only some religions that say marriage has to be between two people.
And to clarify, before any confusion, I'm not a Muslim, or a Mormon outcast. I do have some Muslim friends.
Actually, according to Christian mythology, Jesus was a bastard (given that Mary and God weren't married at the time).
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
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
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.
I'm not sure about present law, but until recently, in Canada, a marriage was not legal, unless it was consumated, the specific wording of the law requiring that "semen be deposited in the vagina", i.e. even mere intercourse was not sufficient to consumate the marriage.
Now it is equally interesting that Canada is in the throws of legalizing marriages among homosexuals, for many of the reasons you outine (i.e. there is no legal basis not to, and sufficient basis to require permitting it), so this consumation law is a bit quaint.
However, I am not aware that it has been struck down, or rescinded.
You could've hired me.
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.
After WWII there was a law passed that the government cannot detain people indefinitely. This was specifically in reaction to how the Japanese citizens were treated during the war.
Padilla is an American citizen and he has the same rights that you or I have. Why is the government so scared of bringing him to trial? Oh, that's right, they don't have any evidence.
The President cannot just declare somebody an "enemy combatant" and keep them in prison forever.
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.
A lot, indeed most of the rights and financial perks assocated with marriage are really about producing children. They are just typically referred to as marriage related because they evolved in a society that believed children should only result from marriage.
With the major reason (from a legislative POV) for children being a next generation large enough to keep society running, artificial reproduction is irrelevant, and will stay irrelevant until the technology reaches a level where cloned kids (or whatever) start making up a significant part of the workforce that has to pay for such benefits as social security for their elders.
Then there's privacy issues. The society can tell that a gay couple can't naturally reproduce without having to run tests on them, but to determine (for legal purposes) that a heterosexual couple is infertile would require forcing them to disclose the results of medical tests, or even to take those tests. The more non-reproductive couples benefitting from the supposed advantages of marriage, the more pressure it puts on the society to instead violate privacy, as part of a new strategy of only extending those benefits to genuine reproducers.
Of course, this could lead to a system where a gay couple raising a child counted as reproducers and got benefits, while one that wasn't didn't. In the same way, the system could be changed so that potential reproduction would't count for any advantages, just actual reproduction. This would be a form of more equal rights, and might even be a good idea, but it means far, far more than just changing the marriage laws.
Genetic parentage would be irrelevant, just who was paying to get the offspring into the world and raise it to the point where it contributes to society. There are some ethical advantages to that principle, but it creates strange changes in a lot of laws, not just marriage.
Picture a first time home buyer. Under such a system, they can only get Federal income tax credit if they wait until they already have a child (or at least one of them is bearing one), before they buy the house. The IRS could have a rule that you have to get pregnant or adopt in the same year if you want to get a first time home buyer's deduction that year. Now society is penalizing planning ahead to prepare a nuturing environment, for many reproducers.
Or what about the legal status of a couple (or single parent, for that matter) whose sole minor offspring commits a major crime and so appears unlikely to ever become a contributer to society. He goes to prison at 15, and they lose their housing write off unless they get another offspring. (and we have better than usual cause to think just maybe they shouldn't be the ones raising kids) Parents whose sole child has just died at age 7 may find they can't afford their existing lifestyle unless they adopt or become foster parents within the year (and the foster home system, already deeply flawed, gains more financial pressure to pick bad foster parents who are just in it for the money).
Personally, I'll support marriage for just about anybody who claims to want it, with maybe a few exemptions for things such as incestuous unions, with incest defined by relationships close enough for there to be genetic consequences. (Heck, let's take the arguement to an extreme. If a group of wife swappers wants to set up a system to make sure all their collective kids get college, let's say go for it. If all the wives of that guy in Utah gave adult consent, fine, let's call that a marriage too).
Now, how do you make the changes in society to allow it without imposing some serious burdens on the more conventional majority of reproducers, and thus shooting ourselves in our collective feet when we get old enough to collect Social Security, or a young healthy population to fight a war, or whatever comes up that we need a few million not too disfunctional young people?
Who is John Cabal?
Marriage is not a right, it is, at best, a tradition or custom. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
...response...
...response...
Customs and traditions change as society changes. Why should this one be different than any others?
An even better arguement is: If it's a tradition or custom, why does it guarantee special protections under the law? Why do married couples pay less taxes than unmarried couples? Why is it that married couples can get joint health insurance that's significantly cheaper than 2 separate policies? Why can married couples qualify for lower interest rates on house loans.
If it's tradition, let's leave the corporations and government out of it, and make it the sole realm of the churches.
Marriage is 'special'. Places that have allowed same sexed marriages have seen increased divorce and infidelity. Same sexed marriage takes away the 'specialness' of marriage.
Gay sex and marriage are immoral, as are divorce and infidelity. It's no surprise that a place which has one type of immorality has another. So there may be general society problems causing both, it may not be gay marriage itself destroying values.
Gay sex is immoral? How is it any more immoral than straight couples doing it in the butt? Huh? If marriage creates morality out of immorality (ok sex where there was immoral pre-marital sex), then why deny this to gays?
Look, the arguement is "marriage is blah, special, a sacrement, this, that, the other thing". Fine. Whatever. Call that marriage, and call equal protection for couples under the law "civil union".
The arguement stands like thus:
Conservative Preacher: "Gay marriage would ruin the specialness of marriage"
Gays: "Fine, whatever, don't call it marriage. In the mean time, we have a loving, monomogous relationship, and your laws are costing us a lot of money that we wouldn't have to otherwise pay if we were like you".
Conservative Preacher: "Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman."
Gays: "Dude. Don't call it marriage if it makes you feel better. Whatever. But, whatever the civil, protected by US law equivilancy is, we'd like to have that".
Conservative Preacher: "Same sexed couples cannot have children on their own, therefore they should not have be entitled to the protections of marriage."
Gays: "How does the ability of two people to have children relate to their home loan interest rate? To their need to pay more taxes? To their need for more expensive health insurance (no children should mean less expensive health insurance)?"
Whatever. Every arguement I've heard against gay marriage goes back to the definition of marriage, which is defined in an anti-gay religious sense. However, somehow this has been extended to the law, and it's just stupid. There are 2 parts to a union-between-two-people. One is the part that the church, god, and your parents will recognize. The other is the one that the IRS, blue cross/blue shield, and Century21 will recognize. All that most gay people want is the 2nd part, and they're even willing to not call it marriage, opting for calling it what it really is, a "civil" (or having to do with the law) "union" (partnership of two people).
~Will
sig?
What they're saying is that the LEGAL STATE of marriage should extend to gay couple as well as straight ones. I've yet to see a logical objection to that premise.
I've yet to see a logical explanation as to why the government cares at all about who is married to whom. IMO, the whole problem would just go away if we got rid of marriage licenses, different taxation for married couples, different rules for asset ownership by married couples and all the rest of that claptrap.
Who people choose to live with, sleep with, share their incomes with, etc., is no one's business but theirs.
I happen to think this notion of redefining the term 'marriage' to include homosexual relationships is also rather silly, but the whole thing would be much less of an issue if the government were just taken out of it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
What's remarkable is that the "religious" right, who have long used the AIDS epidemic to support their case, are now putting themselves on record against monogamy for gay couples. The mind just boggles.
... 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
This is the BEST Christmas EVER!!!
... and in the DRM, bind them.
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?
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.
I feel the term marriage has more connetations than just a union between any couple...traditionally and religiously. So, give everyone the same rights...but, keep the word marriage meaning the same.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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
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?
What's to stop Bush from declaring you an enemy comabtant? Or more likely it would be a prominent activist, or someone involved in a political movement the powers that be would like to suppress. If we expect to keep our right to cast off the government, as noted in the declaration of independance, we cannot give them the power to summarily execute its citizens.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
To say that Jesus Christs parents were married is ... strange.
... dubious. One of the ways to be considered married was for a man and a woman to go on a trip together. So in THAT sense, they were, indeed, considered married. But that hardly maps at all well onto the current understanding of the term.
At that time the formalities of marriage were
The reason for this is actually fairly simple. When there aren't any significant property issues, the state and church tend to ignore the formalities. In the early US, e.g., proof of marriage would be something as simple as a page in the family bible that said you were married. And if you had moved, nobody would know when it had been filled out, or who had signed it. And few would care. But this didn't work as well when property got involved. And then the government decided that people were easier to rule if you kept track of them, so a rule was propagated that all people had to record their marriages with the county clerk. And it progressed from there.
But the modern concept of marriage owes a lot more to the state wanting to track everyone than it does to any religious rule.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"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."
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]
" Again, you ignore the real people who are deprived of money when you don't pay for their music."
Blatantly copied from one of my previous comments, but it's certainly relevant to this discussion.
Quote me:
If you really want to see how the artist is deprived of money, you should check into how much the record industry takes (as a matter of general practice) out of the artist's cut of album sales to cover the cost of broken records using a model which was created when vinyl records were sold. Nevermind the fact that the percentage of CDs broken during shipping is a mere fraction of the number of vinyl records that were broken; they're taking the same cut. Or perhaps you could look at how the industry manipulates artists' contracts using high-powered lawyers to ensure that artists are locked into a single company for eternity without even the option of going out on their own. When an artist is contracted to produce 5 albums, the recording company will often ignore albums that don't sell well, keeping the artist locked into a perpetual contract that actually hinders their ability to create new content. The record company makes a bunch of money from the first album, but gives the artist next to nothing from it, citing "recording, studio, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, promotional costs, etc", then shelves the next 5 or 6 albums when it becomes clear they're not selling as well as the first, but then tells the artist that they've only created one album. And don't go thinking that this only happens rarely, or to small artists. The Dixie Chicks just recently had to sue their label to get more than $4million that was owed to them. If memory serves, they recorded an album that went platinum, for which their label refused to pay them. Talk about real theft.
The "I'm just demoing it" argument has always been a bit weak, though not entirely inaccurate. While there are some folks who really do buy more music when they download, I'm certain that, at least a majority, do not. That being said, I think the real problem is that when people look at a CD, they're thinking less about an artist making it, and more about a multi-national conglomerate mega-corp that produced it and is trying to sell it to them at extremely inflated prices. My personal argument in this whole thing is that I will not put my money into the hands of corrupt organizations that should have been broken up decades ago, with their top brass jailed on RICO violations. They've now grown so bold as to demand to be exempt from all anti-trust lawsuits. This is like the mafia demanding to be exempt from murder prosecutions. I suppose the logic is, "we've been breaking these laws for so long, why don't you just stop bugging us about it?". I do buy CDs, T-shirts, concert tickets, etc from non-RIAA affiliated bands that I like. That is how I show my support. If Metallica wants another dollar from me (I've bought their stuff in the past), they'd best get away from their RIAA whore of a label and stop treating their fans like garbage. I absolutely support the rights of artists and others to make a profit from their intellectual property. What I do not support in any way are corrupt organizations (as defined under US Federal RICO statutes). I will not pay them money, and I will not support them in any way, shape, or form. I believe my argument holds very good water, as the evidence against the major music companies is plain and out in the open. Over the past 50 some-odd years, the entertainment industry has conspired to violate the laws of this country, the sanctity of the American judicial and legislative branchs, and the trust of the American public. This is not to say that they behave better in other places, I just don't have the background information to accuse them of wrongdoing in, say, France that I do for the US.
And from another brilliant comment of mine:
I find it amus
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Asset ownership, economic support, etc. can all be accomplished via a contract, which is arguably what Marriage is. Corporations don't seem to have a problem with asset ownership.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
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.
That's absolutely true. I'll admit that it'll hurt the artist... but really, remember that an album really is a collection of songs. To continue with the analogy, really what you mean is a gallery of paintings. Each individual song is a complete song, just like each individual painting is a complete painting. Your analogy would only work if I was removing choice melodies from the song itself and paying the artist a fraction of the cost.
If an artist means for the album to be heard as a whole, they should release the whole thing as one song. No one will debate whether you need to hear the whole thing or just parts of it. It's one song, the smallest acceptable denomination.
If the artist leaves it for interpretation, and each individual song is acceptable on it's own from a casual listener, then it's the listener's choice. If the artist wants to force us to see the whole meaning, make it one song.
Consequentally, I'll buy one painting. Now if he had made 9 paintings that each were well done, and together they made a bigger piece... (note that we can copy these paintings so that each is practically perfect, like the original), then it should be no problem for you to take just one painting. If he combines the 9 into one canvas, then obviously you'll buy the entire thing (because that's the smallest denomination), and he'll 'force' the so-called 'bigger' picture on you.