Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rejects RIAA Appeal
An anonymous reader submits "Recall that the RIAA originally used to directly send DMCA-laced supoenas to ISPs to obtain information about a P2P user. Then recall how Verizon and other providers balked saying the RIAA had to file John Doe suits first. It ultimately reached SCOTUS, with the RIAA appealing a decision that was in Verizon's favor. SCOTUS has declined to hear the case, effectively casting the Verizon opinion in stone. Wahoo! Part of DMCA shot down!"
And the Lord saw that it was good, and said, "w00t!"
Thank goodness, they chose not to stifle innovation, because the RIAA thinks their product desreves more money.
The courts are finally catching on to the RIAA's game. People should start suing *them*.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
All the 'Nothing to see' messages had me thinking the RIAA had DMCA'd /.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court is at least knocking down the RIAA. Maybe now they'll realize litigating teenagers is actually a money-losing endeavor.
Perhaps, like all of us, the judges are getting tired of the RIAA's "tactics" and want it to shut up and stop whining.
Just read the summary again and you'll see this isn't that major of a victory for P2P fans... all the RIAA has to do is file a "John Doe" lawsuit, and then Verizon will have to turn over the info so that the user is identified and dropped into the defendant's chair.
Sorry, this doesn't make P2P copyrighted music stealing legal...
great :) now all people have to do is STOP STEALING MUSIC. it's not that hard, and there's plenty of alternatives now. no excuses left to download music illegally.
The Supreme Court of USA for those of you who (like me) didn't have a clue at first.
its always refreshing to see judges making decisions based off law and not political interests
I don't think so.
More like still up for debate. Unless I'm mistaken, status quo remains and this can continue to be repeatedly brought up until the issue finally does get ruled on by the court. Correct?
This isn't final unless/until all the remaining appellate districts rule in the same way. One district going the other way might bring it back to the supremes.
If they'd heard it and decided against the RIAA, rather than just refusing to hear it, it would be final.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Chalk one up for the good guys. Good guys: 3 Bad greedy companies: 10,003
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
GOOOOOOAAAALLLLLLL! I think this just became the highlight of my day. Seriously, im glad the wanting-to-rule-the-world corporations finally got a nice kick after totally abusing their size.
Now if the RIAA is disallowed from using "John Doe" litigation, we can finally be (at least somewhat) proud of the justice system!
Wahoo! Part of DMCA shot down!
Not really. What the RIAA was doing was never really in the DMCA, a fact noted by the D.C. Circuit when they overturned the District Court's decision on a pure statutory analysis. This leaves us where we started, minus only a dubious construction atop the DMCA, an RIAA gamble that didn't pan out.
geek. lawyer.
Sorry, this doesn't make P2P copyrighted music stealing legal...
Nor does it make trading music files online "stealing" no matter how much they want the world to believe that it is.
I find your lack of respect disturbing, slashdotter... or should I say John Doe #1!?!
I thought it said SCROTUS at first! I wonder if they have any ties to the terrorist organization known as the CLIT.
...when activist judges use their positions to legislate from the bench and shoot down part of such a patriotic law like the DMCA.
Of course not. It _is_ however, a victory for those of us who believed that the RIAA's approach to the entire affair shouldn't be allowed. Essentially, a subpoena is a court document used to extract information. There should be judicial oversight to ensure that that process is not being abused. That's what this is about.
Remember that their reaction to this will be to screech about how it demonstrates that need even more laws to protect the level of profits that they demand. In the mid term, it may just be a case of them needing to bribe^H^H^H^H^H donate more in order to purchase DMCA v2.0 that gets around these pesky 'due process' loopholes.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The Digital Millenium Copywrite act can be viewed as unconstitutional. I'm glad the supreme court is finally taking the correct steps to defend the individual's liberties in this country instead of the usual practice of protecting large firms profits (merly because those firms have too much say in our government because of the money they put into it). Hopefully this will bring an end to frivilous lawsuits against people that are mere pawns in the scheme of warez and piracy. Personally, I would rather see the RIAA spend some of thier resources in ensuring better music is being produced instead of the formulized crap they are turning out currently.
What does this mean for current lawsuits, and why does having john doe lawsuits make it better than if they knew your name? Who's fielding those lawsuits?
This is only one of the cases the **IA submitted for review by the SCOTUS.
I'm still on the edge of my seat.
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
At least it forces the RIAA Stormtroopers to follow due process. It's also going to cost them more than using mail merge to send out the DMCA notices.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
this isn't that major of a victory for P2P fans
However it is a major victory for due process. No corporation should be allowed to issue their own 'supoenas' to force a third-party to turn over personal information without proper judicial oversight. That part of the DMCA was WAY over the line.
Or is this simply until the RIAA frames their arguments differently. Those of us old enough and who read some history books in school remember the SCOTUS sometimes reversing decisions or simply throwing it back in the plaintiffs face and saying, "You didn't cross all your T's and dot all your I's, we'll be here if you'd like to have another go later on." The ball is merely in the RIAA's court while they choose another tack.
For now, it's certainly good stuff, but be wary.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
America is now amassing a body of case law that protects our rights from attacks like the DMCA, and its INDUCEments to tyranny. But the pattern shows so far only that Verizon's corporate rights trump the RIAA's corporate privileges. We need some decisions that show that human rights to free expression and fair use of personal property trump corporate claims to profits. What's the EFF got up its sleeve? Or EPIC? The hoary old ACLU? Or maybe Jon Johnassen will free us all?
--
make install -not war
exactly what I was thinking.
I couldn't have w00ted better myself.
Nice troll, assmaster.
Yes, they DO ask for proof of residency. And the deadline for registration was last week.
And even if they didn't, what you're proposing is electoral fraud. I want Kerry to win, no question, but not by electoral shenanigans.
We got Bush that way, remember?
"...all people have to do is STOP STEALING MUSIC. it's not that hard, and there's plenty of alternatives now. no excuses left to download music illegally."
A large quantity of incompatible DRM technologies that don't work well together is hardly an 'alternative'. Buying music encoded at 128 Mbits instead of something less lossy is again, not optimal.
The RIAA/MPAA will need to embrace the promise of PtoP or continue to suffer it's wrath. And before you get on the high horse of morality, let's examine the types of 'music' being sold to kids both visually (MTV - when they show 'music'), and audibly; then note it's impact.
When the recording industry glorifies and promotes criminal activity, sex and violence, why shouldn't the kids follow that simple example? They can be gang-bangers and that's 'ok', but heaven help them if they download a song? Something's very wrong here...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
It is only a matter of time before RIAA gets congress and the admin to pass more laws that will allow them the ability to do whatever. It is one of the reasons why the picked an ex-republican congressmen to head them up.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yes, it is. What is being done meets the legal defination of stealing and that is all that matter in the court room.
all the RIAA has to do is file a "John Doe" lawsuit
It's the difference between junk mail and spam. Filing a law suit costs more time and money than putting a few details into a boiler-plate letter. Also, you can get in trouble for filing frivolous law suites, in a way you can't for sending silly letters.
I'd say this is a victory. Not the victory in the war, but certainly one avenue of harrassment that's been closed to them.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Riiight... I don't sign a EULA or any such agreement when I purchase the CD, but that only means that I own the physical CD - not the copyright to the content that's ON the CD. Current copyright laws (other than DMCA) prevent me from selling COPIES of that CD, but I'm free to resell that CD to whomever wants to buy it.
Thus, re-distributing the physical CD that you purchased as your property would be legal (though you would no longer own the right to digital reproductions you might have made as you no longer "own" the content), but re-distributing the protected works contained therein remains illegal.
Not that that was the point of *this* case...
This doesn't make sense. Yes, they feel their product deserves more money, buy hey, it's their product, they can charge what they want. That's different than DRM, "fair use" issues, the main issue, do they have the right to issue supoenas [sic] this way? Two (or three) different issues, because while the Supreme Court non-ruling puts a small kink in RIAA world domination plans, it will NOT stop the lawsuits (unfortunately).
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
The decision forces RIAA to use the John Doe litigation method. All this action stops is RIAA from bypassing the court system when trying to force ISPs to turn over use account information. RIAA now has to file a John Doe supeona and the case as to whether it is justifiable to turn over the information is then heard in a court case. It is not automatic as RIAA suggested (more like demanded).
What is being done meets the legal defination of stealing and that is all that matter in the court room.
Hmm, I was always under the assumption that the legal definition of stealing was:
The basic legal definition of theft is 'the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it'.
But I guess legal dictionaries and my own recollection are wrong. If you are trading music online you aren't depriving the owner of anything unless he can no longer sell the product.
Nor does it make trading music files online "stealing" no matter how much they want the world to believe that it is.
No, that is not what this sez. Not even vaguely. It is about whether you can go on a fishing expedition to find someone who MIGHT be stealing vs. KNOWING that someone is stealing. Altogether different.
But, hey, what do I know. IANAL.
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
Not nessasarily. Usually once the Court refuses to hear something the lower courts will honor that position as law. This is what is called a Stare Decisis ruling. Now this ruling is now only pertinent to the district court in which it occured. Other juristicions will usually look to a juristiction that has already ruled on a similar case before issuing its ruling. (The fact the Court has stare decisised this one is gonna do wonders to advance this on other juristictions as well.
The RIAA could theoretically file again in another juristiction, but may be denied by the Court on grounds that there is a SCOTUS ruling in place on the matter (stare decisis does not carry the same weight as a Court ruling). For examples sake, the Pro-life crowd is reluctant to challenge Roe v. Wade until the Court is firmly in conservative hands. If you have a case before the SCOTUS you usually can not be heard again for decades (seperate but equal 1890's; brown v. board 1954... long ass time). So in short.... the RIAA is effectively REAMED.
I always knew mixing political science and computers could be fun :)
Just read the summary again and you'll see this isn't that major of a victory for P2P fans... all the RIAA has to do is file a "John Doe" lawsuit, and then Verizon will have to turn over the info so that the user is identified and dropped into the defendant's chair.
Sorry, this doesn't make P2P copyrighted music stealing legal...
So? Swiping copyrighted music was *always* illegal. What's fantastic about this is that ISPs don't have to give up personal information to anyone who can make up a "Yeah, I own the copyright on something that this guy has" email. It means that only people concerned enough about something being stolen are going to get involved with requesting personal data. This means no more RIAA/MPAA mass-mailings generated by bots (well, unless they figure out how to have a bot produce lawsuits).
There was a serious privacy issue, as demonstrated recently on Slashdot by people making up bogus copyright-claim letters and sending them out and getting personal data without the ISP even researching the problem (not that I think that the ISP should be expected to do research on the basis of a bogus email). If you're upset enough to want someone's personal data, you're upset enough to file a lawsuit.
May we never see th
Um, no it doesn't.
"TODAY.. is a GOOD day to die!"
C'mon, more b'atleth to the DCMA. And, hit'em with a few pain sticks, too.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
So where can we send a thank you to Verizon?
Remeber that this cost them a good deal of money to do.
why the police are not allowed to get an arrest warrant for someone based on their dna, especially pertinent in rape cases, but the riaa can get your first born based on an ip address? something seems a bit skewed to me....
am i the only one?
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stea ling
y right
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cop
Please stop spreading incorrect information. kTnx
I'm sure you two have been around here for long enough to have this argument a thousand times over. Stop already. We're bored of it. ;)
I had premonition just now. RIAA is going to ask for a constitutional amendment to provide it protection from the citizens in the US.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red. htm
Laws can chage and acts like the NET act have changed the definition.
> I find your lack of respect disturbing, slashdotter... or should I say John Doe #1!?!
If I was an artist (which I happen to not be) I would be pleased if my music was widespreading all over the world and shared over the net, not feeling disrespected. If someone feels disrespected for the sharing effect, then something is wrong with that person/people.
This is, in my opinion, a step forward in the fight against the neofeudalist threat.
Laws can chage and acts like the NET act have changed the definition.
No they haven't. In particular, nothing on the page you linked to changes, or purports to change, the definition of theft.
While true, they *generally* would defer to the other district's ruling in such matters--they don't usually *try* to make a conflict in the law.
But when they do, yes, SCOTUS has to step in.
There'll be dancing, Dancing in the streets...
It doesn't make P2P copyrighted music stealing legal, but it's going to make it a lot harder to scare settlements out of people. Before, if they wanted to scare a file-swapper by litigation, all they had to do was subpoena the ISP, then send a nasty letter off to the user and wait for them to settle. Now they have to actually have lawyers file cases with the court before they can send out these subpoenas.
There's a lot more paperwork (and legal fees) if you have to do everything inside the legal framework instead of being able to say "Pay us $5000 or we'll sue you and your lawyer's bills will be more than $5000." Now they can't use that tactic, and people are more likely to fight back and force a court battle over copyright laws (which the RIAA does not want, as they currently control the copyright situation in congress so any loss of this control to the courts is undesirable.)
They are well aware that one of these cases making it to court could be more damaging than the alternative. It may not make downloading music legal, but this ruling does make it a lot harder for the RIAA to play the role of "enforcer." I'm sure they'll figure out something else, but I doubt they'll be sending out any more mass-subpoenas.
...or Cary Sherman neglected to invite Scalia to go duck hunting.
Sorry, this doesn't make P2P copyrighted music stealing legal...
This sentence alone would make me mod you down as troll or flamebait if I had any points left.
Damn how many times do we have to go over this folks?
Downloading music is copyright infringement and not Stealing. That is currently how the law is written.
Its apples to oranges. Just because you keep calling an apple an orange doesn't mean you will get orange juice when you squish it.
Bet this
Just read the summary again and you'll see this isn't that major of a victory for P2P fans... all the RIAA has to do is file a "John Doe" lawsuit, and then Verizon will have to turn over the info so that the user is identified and dropped into the defendant's chair.
The decision asserts that due process is still a requirement of the constitution and the Judicial branch.
Who has ever implied it would render copyright infringement (not stealing, you can't steal something you bought, you can only infringe on the rights the holder has retained) legal?
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
But I guess legal dictionaries and my own recollection are wrong. If you are trading music online you aren't depriving the owner of anything unless he can no longer sell the product.
You're depriving the owner the money that you would have paid to obtain a legal right to use the material in question.
Try as you might to justify this it's illegal.
As Ronald Regan would say!
While it's still possible for the RIAA to proceed with John Doe, it costs quite a bit more for each case to go ahead this way. If it was a suit against a single entity this would be an irrelevant cost. But when you're using a long-term shotgun strategy of tens of thousands of law suits, those costs add up fast. Just ask SCO how that goes.
You missed the point.
Many things are illegal that aren't stealing. Stealing deprives the victim of property. Illegal copying does not. Equating copyright violation with a more serious crime is just FUD.
But yes, it's still illegal.
Precisely. Some other examples:
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
I'm glad this John Doe silliness is over (one would hope). I really think that the DMCA is being abused to push it past constitutionality. Like suing / arresting anyone who says anything about copy protection.
What ever happened to the standard of fair use?
If the music files are copyrighted work, and the copyright holder has not allowed redistribution, then yes, it does make it stealing.
The best way to avoid stealing precious music is to listen to quality free music only. Don't waste money on music, save your money for something else. Like good food.
Seriously, I'd love to see some drastic changes made to strengthen fair use.
First, copyright shouldn't last nearly as long as it does -- it goes well beyond the Consititutional mandate. Furthermore, copyright should not depend on the date the author dies -- why should the work of the author last longer because an author happens to be healthier than another? Why should the willingness of a publisher to fund an artist depend on whether they have leukemia or not? Have a fixed number of years (I'd like to see the 14 plus an additional 14 if the holder chooses to renew the copyright -- the copyright term shouldn't exceed fifty years, at the longest. Let copyright serve its goal of being an incentive to authors to create work so that they can make money.)
Second of all, I want to see fair use vastly strengthened. The main thing I'd like to see allowed -- the use of characters and settings in derivative works. I think that use of characters and settings from a work should be *always* allowed (obviously, aside from old grandfathered-in works) in new works. This would supersede trademark protection (i.e. if you don't want someone to be able to use your trademark, don't trademark a character). If taking advantage of this fair use exemption, one would be responsible for ensuring that one's derivative works cannot be confused with the original work, and would be liable (much in the same manner that we are currently liable for trademark infringement) for making a derivative work that can be confused with the original. Why do I want to see this? I want to see fan fictions and alternate series plot branches made legal. Currently, fan fictions aren't legal. Companies often turn a blind eye and simply choose not to exercise their protections, but every fanfic author must live constantly in the knowledge that he could be nailed by a copyright-holding company if that company feels like applying legal pressure at some point. I don't think that discouraging the production of fanfics helps society at all. Also, there are times when I read a book series that I like -- but I dislike a particular event that happens, and wish that the plot had gone in another direction. For example, what if Jar Jar had been killed off early on in Star Wars Episode 1? (Though this is more useful for books -- creating alternate movies is hard because of the expense involved.) I want to see someone be able to say "That sucked. Here's *my* interpretation on how things should have gone!" That's also illegal -- but if characters and settings could be used in derivative works (as long as those derivative works are clearly marked as "unofficial") I think we'd see a lot more by way of interesting ideas.
May we never see th
It just shot down the RIAA's interpretation of that portion of the DMCA.
The DMCA quite clearly states that the ISP is neither responsible nor liable for material stored on customer computers over which they exercise no control.
In other words, they are upholding what the DMCA says, not how the RIAA wants to interpret that section.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :
:
Steal \Steal\, v. i.
1. To practice, or be guilty of, theft; to commit larceny or
theft.
Thou shalt not steal. --Ex. xx. 15.
2. To withdraw, or pass privily; to slip in, along, or away,
unperceived; to go or come furtively. --Chaucer.
Fixed of mind to avoid further entreaty, and to fly
all company, one night she stole away. --Sir P.
Sidney.
From whom you now must steal, and take no leave.
--Shak.
A soft and solemn breathing sound Rose like a steam
of rich, distilled perfumes, And stole upon the air.
--Milton.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Steal \Steal\, v. t. [imp. Stole; p. p. Stolen; p. pr. & vb.
n. Stealing.] [OE. stelen, AS. stelan; akin to OFries.
stela, D. stelen, OHG. stelan, G. stehlen, Icel. stela, SW.
stj["a]la, Dan. sti[ae]le, Goth. stilan.]
1. To take and carry away, feloniously; to take without right
or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal
the personal goods of another.
Maugre thy heed, thou must for indigence Or steal,
or borrow, thy dispense. --Chaucer.
The man who stole a goose and gave away the giblets
in ?lms. --G. Eliot.
They're the ones footing the bill in the end.
Sean D.
"Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
If you walk into a store ans steal a DVD and get busted, you will probably get probation/community service/small fine, depending on your previous convictions and jurisdiction.
If you go online and DOWNLOAD a DVD, that could cost you up to $250,000.
The moral of the story is, download from Best Buy, in person.
(Ok, not really, as Best Buy will probably catch you, and the MPAA won't, but it is interesting to note the different ways the law treats actual theft vs. mythical theft.)
paintball
This should've been caught much much sooner.
In the meantime, another ridiculous bill will be proposed and approved that will allow organizations such as the RIAA/MPAA to bully consumers around in a different manner while the bill itself takes years to travel to the right courts to be struck down... only to have the whole process repeat.
A victory would be changing the system so that the very threats to personal privacy (like this) are moved to the VERY FRONT of the queue and are taken care of immediately instead of years after the fact.
What about those who have already been bulled by the RIAA's tactics that were just struck down? Do they get any kind of compensation?
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
I don't see any definition of 'theft' here. The word is just used randomly in the act name, presumably because No Electronic Copyright Infringement didn't make a nice acronym. (What is it with these acronyms anyway?)
I do see a definition of what we're talking about as 'criminal infringement'.
start here
In any event, the title says that there isn't any electronic theft. It can hardly be taken to mean that copyright infringment is theft.
It isn't copyright violation. It is lost income.
- WAR IS PEACE
- FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
- IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
- BREAKING COPYRIGHT IS STEALING
Doesn't seem to roll off the tongue as well as the other three. I'm a big fan of 1984 but comparing those quotes to this is ridiculous. I could not care less about whether or not is is legal to distribute works on the Internet that are copyrighted. All I care about in the case of the DMCA law is the privileges it gives to copyright holders to shakedown perpetrators with little participation by the court system (as well as some additional activities that it declares to be illegal, including reverse-engineering copy-protection mechanisms).I applaud the decision, but this is just the begining! If one thing never ceases to amaze me it is how ignorant the RIAA/MPAA can be. The evils will reform and try different avenues of legal recourse. keep the fight alive!!
You can't lose something you never had to begin with.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
If you walk into a store ans steal a DVD and get busted, you will probably get probation/community service/small fine, depending on your previous convictions and jurisdiction.
If you go online and DOWNLOAD a DVD, that could cost you up to $250,000.
Not quite, you'll get the $250,000 fine for making copies available to others (e.g. uploading), not for downloading. The suits filed by the RIAA are all about people who are allegedly sharing files on P2P, not people who are downloading. Of course it goes without saying that a $250k fine is ridiculous for non-commercial copyright violation.
well, unless they figure out how to have a bot produce lawsuits...
Bots...Producing...lawsuits...hmmmmm...SHEER GEINUS!
I think I have just hit upon the mysterious solution to step number 3 that has eluded many business plans over the last few years...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
But then most people could care less.
Exactly. I wouldn't want my ISP handing over my billing information just because some company asks for it, and this means my ISP doesn't have to be afraid of serious legal repercussions if they refuse such requests.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Correct me if I am reading your link incorrectly.
It states it is only illegal to reproduce a copywrited material if it exceeds 1,000 US dollars in value.
So basically its okay to distribute it but you can only do it 40 or so times and stay under 1k dollars. And this would be per copywrited item.
That seems fishy to me or at least written poorly.
it is a copyright violation and may or may not be a loss of income.
Put it this way - it may not be stealing, but you're still a criminal.
I'm sick of this whole debate, you're both wrong.
Illegally copying music is not strictly "theft" or "stealing", but that's symantics. It is still illegal, it is still a tort. You are still depriving someone.
Who, of what? Easy... you are depriving the copyright-holder of the right to distribute the copyright-bearing work as he/she/it sees fit. Copyright grants that right exclusively to the copyright holder -- if you deprive them of that right, you are acting against the law.
If you feel that copyright has no place in our society, then add your voice and pocketbook to the fight to legislate it out or reform it. Simply deciding to commit criminal and civil copyright violation is not some noble protest -- you want a copy of something you don't have a right to, or to provide a copy to someone else that they don't have a right to.
And yes, I'm well aware that there are cases where P2P and filesharing are not copyright infringement, and I support those technologies. I'm just so sick of people arguing about whether the terms "theft" or "piracy" are accurate.
I repeat: you are depriving someone of their rights when you download copyright-protected content without permission (through fair use or otherwise).
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Are you upset with the RIAA? Happy that the Supreme didn't side with RIAA? Worried that they will lobby for new laws?
Here's an idea... VOTE! and after you vote YOU lobby the government.
I know it's a weird idea, getting involved and all but if you aren't going to do anything about what's upsetting you then shut your cake hole.
And by the way, I think Bush would side with the RIAA
So let's not celebrate yet. For these things to be truly dead and gone, it must be either a Supreme Court ruling, or it must be done legislatively. Let's hope that our legislature will take some steps to reset the balance between protecting creative authors and protecting the free flow of information. Disney wouldn't be where it is today without the public domain (expired copyright) contributions of the Brothers Grim and many others. This means vote!
So, instead of someone receiving a letter asking them to stop sharing, they are now going to be sued. Although this is a triumph over the DMCA, this could also backfire, forcing the RIAA to start filing more lawsuits against smaller pirates instead of a C&D slap on the wrist.
copying for personal use
copying for profit
theft
three different things in the eyes of the law
If we went back to the original seven years that copyright protection originally afforded an artist, and only an artist, then many, many more would respect copyright. Current copyright law is corrupt and unenforcable and many people have chosen to disregard it.
To single out some for the behavior of many is an injustice.
Words to men, as air to birds.
As previously covered, California Governer Schwartzenegger signed into law a bill "requiring anyone disseminating movies or music on the Internet to disclose their e-mail address" as well as the title of the work. Editorial here.
I'm not a lawyer (see, I spelled it out and everything), but this law was likely intended as the **AA's end-run around needing to file a "John Doe" lawsuit and then get the user's information from the ISP. If they can't identify you in a piracy civil action, it seems a **AA-friendly prosecutor can now easily root out your information as part of a criminal investigation. Unlike copyright infringement, I suspect not providing an email address is much easier to show.
Once you're identified, THEN the lawsuit could follow.
Interestingly, the law doesn't say clearly what you need to do if you don't have an email address. It's also very vague about what constitutes a "valid" e-mail address- ""E-mail address" means a valid e-mail address..." (ie, would a mailing list address to which the file-sharer subscribes qualify?).
Also, the law says "Recording" means the electronic or physical embodiment of any recorded images, sounds, or images and sounds, but does not include audiovisual works or sounds accompanying audiovisual works.
It's not just music and movies. The above suggests that anyone in California who runs a website with a copyrighted, commercial image (ie, a photograph) would be subject to this law as well. So any image on a web site would need to be identified by title.
Now, I don't know if every copyrighted, commercial image hosted on a California web site even HAS a title. So I don't see how it's even possible to comply with this.
Read this lame law for yourself.
BTW, for non-minors, the punishment for not having provided your email address is a maximum $2,500 fine and/or a year in prison.
I spent a full minute wondering what the heck is "SCOTUS" and what have the scots (or what has Scotch...) to do with this. Then it finally dawned on me.
;)
Is "Supreme Court" too long to use in a summary on a website for rather non-lawyers? (Judging from the amount of posts beginning with "IANAL" then following up with bad legal advice regardless
...*couldn't* care less.
Sooooo close. But wrong. Seriously wrong.
Stare decisis (actually, the full latin phrase is "stare decisis et quieta non movere" meaning "to stand by things decided and not disturb settled points") only applies to actual court decisions -- the decision of the Supreme Court not to hear the case does not mean that the issue is decided. It simply means that the Supreme Court didn't want to hear this case at this time. While people often analogize this to mean that the Supreme Court is leaning one way or the other, that's just a guess. It can mean any number of different things and predicting Supreme Court vote counts is always a risky business.
In the meantime, the fact that the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case means that the DC Circuit court case stands. It would constitute binding precedent (meaning stare decisis would apply) within the DC Circuit. However, it would only be persuasive authority in other circuits. (Here's a quick run down on the different circuits: http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html. Even though the DC Circuit is tiny -- it is given jurisdiction over many of the most important cases and is considered (by some) to be the most influential of the Circuits.)
But. And here's the kicker -- the disappointed litigant (in this case the RIAA) now will travel throughout the country and raise this same issue in other circuits, hoping to find a panel of judges (these things are heard by 3-judge panels at the first appeal level) that will disagree with the reasoning of the DC Circuit. Then they will likely appeal to the Supreme Court again. A split between the circuits (ie., two circuits saying the law means two different things) is the surest way to get the Supreme Court to review your case. While still not a guarantee, it's likely the Supreme Court will revisit this issue once the RIAA finds a sympathetic circuit to agree with it.
Again, the parent didn't do a bad job explaining, just not entirely accurate. With due respect, the difference between binding precedent and persuasive authority is a subtle, but huge, point. Stare decisis applies to binding precedent, not persuasive precedent.
Written by:
William Stevenson, Ivy Jo Hunter, Marvin Gaye.
© Jobete Music Co. Inc. ASCAP/Stone Agate Music Division BMI
All Rights Reserved.
*covered* by Van Halen, amoung others.
emt 377 emt 4
That has never been proved, and indications are as strong that copying leads to increased sales or has no measurable effect as they are that it reduces sales.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This may not end up being much of a deterrent to the RIAA however. They'll just bump up the money they extort from the John Doe's to cover their increased legal costs.
No, that is not what this sez. Not even vaguely. It is about whether you can go on a fishing expedition to find someone who MIGHT be stealing vs. KNOWING that someone is stealing. Altogether different.
You missed his point. It's not a case about stealing either. It's a case about copyright infringment.
Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
It's not stealing. It's piracy. It's illegal, but it's fundamentally different from stealing.
You steal a CD, and you're taking whatever the owner paid for it. You pirate a CD, and you're depriving the copyright owner of a portion of their rightful fee roughly proportional to your chances of purchasing if piracy was not an option. So your cost to others is a small fraction of a sum smaller than the total price of the CD, in the form of lost profit no greater than if you were simply uninterested in what they had to offer because of the price.
wouldn't this also set a precedent against BSA "raids", too?
All that the RIAA has to do now is get another US Court of Appeals to decide differently, and we're right back here again.
Does anybody believe that this is beyond their abilities?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If the music files are copyrighted work, and the copyright holder has not allowed redistribution, then yes, it does make it stealing.
No, it makes it copyright infringement. What are you, slow? Repeating something over and over doesn't make something any truer.
Does everyone who builds their own cars cost Ford a sale?
Would I have bought a Ford if I couldn't build my own?
Or just walked instead?
What does Ford not have now that I've stolen a car?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Neither are critical gits :). The reference isn't original, but it's certainly apropos.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
In some cases, not even expired copyright. For Rite of Spring in Fantasia, the composer (don't ask me to spell that name properly) didn't like Disney's offer. Disney then discovered that the copyright was not valid in the United States (so much for respecting rights of other countries and composers) and went ahead anyway. I wonder to this day if Fantasia can legally be shown in Russia.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The problem is there is no way to track that. Everyone was willing to look the other way when it was one copyright infringement = one (potential) lost sale. The stakes have changed now, and nobody is willing to overlook it now.
And then I'd meta-mod your ass unfair. Why do idiots like you go around modding any opinion you disagree with as troll?
In spite of assertions otherwise in the form of the PATRIOT act...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Obviously, you didn't get the idea from 1984 that control of language is of great help with control of thought. The corporate-controlled government is creating a crime out of something that should be and once was a civil matter, and manipulation of the language (such as referring to copyright infringement as "theft") is part of that process.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
I disagree with your definition of "piracy". Arrrrrr!
(Piracy is holding up and looting ships, plus the occasional raids on coastal targets. Mess it up again and you'll walk the plank, boy!)
Look, liberals. Bush won every single recount. Yes, it was close, but he won every single one. Even the one done by the press in 2001 that you never heard about because it didn't go the way the media wanted. BUSH WON! Now build a fucking bridge and get over it.
It's true that this strengthens the decision, but does not "set it in stone." Had they granted certiorari, then ruled in Verizon's favor, that would do so--it is VERY difficult to overturn set precedent, one reason why, for example, the NRA hasn't tried very many second amendment court challenges against gun control--should the SCOTUS rule against them, they would find themselves in a *very* bad position. So: Good, but not as good as it could have been.
Ah, sorry. Step number 3 is:
3. Spell Check
Won't the RIAA just make the user settle for more money to pay for the legal paperwork?
All I know is that being the President is hard work.
Any links to back this up?
Thank you for using "Supreme Court" instead of SCOTUS. Slashdot needs to take a serious break from all the stupid acronyms.
I may be redundant here, as I'm procrastinating enough just by looking at /. -- but, this does not set ANYTHING in stone. It basically says that the Supreme Court doesn't wish to decide on these cases.
The Supreme Court has the option of trying cases on this topic in the future, when they feel the core problem of the matter is more accessible.
Considering the subject matter, though, I don't think they will. Forcing the RIAA to use the court system seems reasonable, as opposed to letting them effectively issue their own subpoenas with no financial or time effort.
Let's draw an analogy here. The flamewars usually go like this:
A: Copyright infringement is theft.
B: No it isn't, it's copyright infringement.
A: You are stealing the right to profit, and it's illegal.
B: I never said it wasn't illegal. I said it wasn't theft.
Let's apply this to a different action:
A: Assault is theft.
B: No it isn't, it's assault.
A: You are stealing my right to walk down the street without harm, and it's illegal.
B: I never said it wasn't illegal. I said it wasn't theft.
See how stupid it sounds to the people who haven't been drinking the RIAA/MPAA kool-aid? Notice how the people asserting that two different actions are identical can never back it up, and usually just repeat their assertion?
Depriving someone of the use of their property is also considered theft in almost all jurisdictions.
There's also a concept of theft of services, which one could call fraud in theory (not sure what that would buy you), but is legally usally called theft.
Theft does not consist solely of taking a physical thing from someone so they don't have it any more. Never has, never will.
BZZT, wrong again. It's not piracy either. It's copyright infringment. Let me quote Judge Noonan on this one (from the Grokster case):
"Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it 'theft.' You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language."
The 'abusive language' he was speaking of included both 'theft' and 'piracy'.
For specifics, let's try the electric law library:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p050.htm
PIRACY (BY U.S. CITIZEN) - Whoever, being a citizen of the U.S., commits any murder or robbery, or any act of hostility against the U.S., or against any citizen thereof, on the high seas, under color of any commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretense of authority from any person, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life. 18 USC
Not even close to infringement.
It wasn't seven years. It was 14 years with an optional additional 14 years.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
And they key word in all of those definitions is 'take'
By definition, you are making a COPY, making two when there was one.
The one never is removed from whom had it to begin with. Thus, a copy.
This is why copyright was needed, because theft clearly does not apply.
Yeah, and they can't just add 500 "john doe" defendents, on the basis of "someone must be stealing from us?"
What does that change?
It's not an opinion, it's flat out wrong. Dowling vs United States, 1985 established that copyright infringement is not theft definitively. The Supreme Court said so.
Every time a story comes on Slashdot that mentions copyright, some idiots go around saying that copyright infringement is theft. It isn't. And every time it happens, a flame war erupts. People should know by now that spouting useless crud like "copyright infringement is theft" is both stupid and annoying. That's why I'd mod it as troll or flamebait. The fact that I disagree isn't relevent. The fact that the Supreme Court disagrees is relevent.
Wrong! Swiping copyrighted music is quite fine if the owner of the copyright gives permission (see http://www.magnatune.com for instance). Same as with open source. Linux, for example, is copyrighted but the holders of the copyright give everyone persmission to distribute more copies.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Except of course he lost the popular vote. Down with the electoral college!
Is it not debatable as to who is doing the reproduction in this case, however? In many jurisdictions (e.g. Canada, at least parts of the EU) it seems to be held that it is the uploader who is making the reproduction, not the downloader. This would seem to be common sense, I don't however know what the code is in the US.
The article doesn't say the margin. It is important because if it is 9-0 we can be confident that in the future cases like this won't be appealed. If it is 5-4 RIAA will just have to wait until a Justice changes his opinion or one more Scalia is appointed.
Also, this decision doesn't shut down a part of DMCA. They just did not decide upon it. It would be interesting to see the motivation (which the article does not mention either)
I know the slashdot crowd is not very political but if you like the decision you have now, remeber that your president picks the judges, btu you pick the president (maybe)
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Quick, someone get a patent on this to block the effort!
The RIAA was not known for doing any due diligence before issuing supoenas. Now that they are required to actually file the lawsuit before issuing the supoenas, does that mean their practices must avoid violating the frivolous lawsuit laws in several states? Or does claiming strictly on the filename that a file must violate copyright actually satistify all the required due diligence to file a lawsuit? Doesn't fair use allow 30 seconds of a song to be redistributed without license? How does the RIAA figure out without downloading the file that it exceeds 30 seconds?
The people who most vehemently and aggressively support intellectual property rights are those who haven't had a single original thought in their lives. They're hoping to monopolize that one single moment of reverie when they finally achieve it.
Those of us who make a living in intellectual property have learned to do it the right way: keep your mouth shut. If you don't want something to be redistributed, don't put it in an easily redistributable form!
The other people (*AA) who are zealouts about IP rights are hypocrites. They're all fat and rich and couldn't give a good gosh-darn about the good of society or the Constitution.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I suppose you'll explode with self-righteous rage if I ask,"Why do you give a sh*t if we're milking media companies dry?"
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Well damn, if I can get a law passed that says everyone has to pay me $10/day for the right to breathe, and everyone refuses to pay me, then by that logic everyone would be stealing $10/day from me.
No, they can't charge what they want. It always reaches a point where the alternative to paying them what they try to charge is worth more than accepting their charge.
It isn't a lie to have been honestly wrong about something.
Provided, of course that you phrased it like : "There is some evidence that I believe indicates that such and such is true".
If you phrase it like: "Such and such is true" and it isn't true, then what you said was, in fact, a lie. In some ways it's even worse as it is more manipulative.
Copyright infringment is stealing rolls off the tongue much better than breaking copyright is stealing. Nobody except you says 'breaking copyright' anyways...
You must have missed the "or more" and "total". If you had posted using an account instead of as anonymous coward, you could have looked at a list of your postings and seen there was a response to this one.
BREAKING COPYRIGHT IS STEALING
Doesn't seem to roll off the tongue as well as the other three.
How about:
COPYING IS STEALING
Rolls off the tongue much easier, I think.
Not AFAIK. Companies sign contracts with the BSA specifically allowing the BSA to 'raid' and check for license compliance. Music listeners sign no such deals.
Ewige Blumenkraft.
Good.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
I feel other parts of the DMCA are much more heinous, such as:
I used a bit of artistic license on that quote, but I really dislike the section of the DMCA dealing with copy protection.
nt heh 420!
SCOTUS? Is that 'Supreme Court of the United States'? Where do you people get these acronyms...?
Almost as bad as the other one I've heard: POTUS President of the United States. I mean if you say: "I went to the SCOTUS and spoke to the POTUS." You'll get a 'Huh/Good for you/English please' back...
For one, laws are not commandments set in stone passed down from the elders and enforced by our masters. Laws reflect the opinions and feelings of the people who they govern (or they're supposed to in this country, the USA).
Prohibition is a perfect example. They said 'Alcohol baaad!' and the general population told them to shove it and kept on making their moonshine. The result is, I can go to a pub and have a pint.
How does this relate to the topic? Music is an integral part of most cultures. Recently, we've gained the ability to record music with the intention of being able to hear it again. Ever since we've developed that technology, people have been trading recordings with each other. Most commonly this is known as a 'mix'. People have been trading mix tapes for decades.
So my argument is that the general public sees nothing wrong with creating a mix tape. We've all done it, we've all made a mix, we've all given a mix to a friend. As a result, creating mix tapes for your friends shouldn't be illegal.
Along the same lines, p2p will become widely accepted for the same reasons mix tapes are accepted and for the same reasons that prohibition failed! It's something you can't stop by suing a few thousand people in one country.
Wasn't Le Sacre du Printemps written by Igor Stravinsky in the early part of the last century? Wikipedia says 1911 to 1913. Fantasia was released in 1940. So without having any links to back up Nom du Keyboard's claim, I would have to say that this seems very plausible -- the work would have still had an active copyright in 1940 (although by now it hopefully would have expired).
It is worth noting that the United States did not become a signatory of the Berne Convention until 1989, although it became a signatory of the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952. Fantasia predates all of these; this also suggests that what the OP is saying is plausible.
Further research (from copyright.gov) shows that the US and the USSR (or at least, Russia) began respecting each others copyrights legally only in 1973, when the latter nation became party to the Universal Copyright Convention in Geneva, Switzerland.
This suggests that there would have been nothing even vaguely illegal about Disney using Le Sacre du Printemps without Stravinsky's permission. It would surprise me, in fact, if they even bothered asking -- if you ask and they say no, you look like a jerk when you do it anyway. But if you just respect the law, no one can fault you for it.
I'm not a big fan of Disney, but for much of the youngish Slashdot community, globally enforced copyrights are seen as the norm, when really that is a very recent development.
RIAA: you have ppl dl'ing our tunez!
Verizon: yeah, so?
RIAA: so we sue you!
*** RIAA slaps Verizon with a lawsuit.
Verizon: fine, I'll DCC you some names. see you in appeals
RIAA: 4ll j00r b4s3 4r3 b3l0ng t0 u5!!
Verizon: mmmm hmmm.
*** Court of Appeals slaps RIAA with a decision-reversal.
RIAA: no fair! SCOTUS, save us!
SCOTUS: fuck off, we have better things to do
Verizon: l0l!
*** RIAA cries
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
SHARING IS STEALING is more in line with the original three.
You missed his point. It's not a case about stealing either. It's a case about copyright infringment.
Which, if I recall the history of copyright was ABOUT theft of intellectual property (although it wasn't referred to as such).
You are assuming that theft occurs only with tangible assets. This is a great assumption, but I do not believe that it is backed by U.S. law.
But, again, IANAL.
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
I live in Ohio you insensitive clod!
You should probably say "it is not theft, it is copyright infringement, and it is still illegal" to avoid having to deal with people who have drank the RIAA/MPAA kool-aid.
In certain jurisdictions you have the concept of unlawful posession of a vehicle. Which basically means you break into it and steal it.
Equating copyright violation with a more serious crime is just FUD.
In Florida, if you physically steal $3000 worth of software CDs, you get up to 5 years in state prison. If you illegally copy $3000 worth of software, you get up to five years in federal prison (up to ten years for a second offense).
So copyright violation isn't exactly a less serious crime, and if the new laws pass it'll probably be made an even more serious crime.
Then again, these are the same people who call sharing "theft" and who called Jesse Jordan's search engine a tool for "willful infringement" of copyright (why did they not sue Google? -- Oh, I know... It is because Google can defend themselves...). Go figure.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Didn't hear much liberal whining then. And we didn't cry a river and try to get it overturned. Thpffft!
Actually... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_ele ction,_1992
Clinton 44,908,254 votes
Bush Sr. 39,102,343 votes
but nice try anyway.
I don't recall it. Have a reference? Hm. Here is (a relatively short) one. The only mention of theft is as "digital theft" in a title of a law, and you may guess once where that comes from.
Elsewhere I also found a reference to "electronic theft". Interestingly, I never saw the term "theft" alone in legal contexts. In other words, the people who put the terms there, knew exactly that it isn't about theft law and do creative naming to muddy the water.
ABOUT theft of intellectual property (although it wasn't referred to as such).
Well, when it wasn't referred as such, why do you?
You are assuming that theft occurs only with tangible assets. This is a great assumption, but I do not believe that it is backed by U.S. law.
No, I am not assuming. That's what the Supreme Court ruled. (look a bit down, there is a fitting quotation.
Aside from that, history of law is quite irrelevant, when I argue that *today* theft has a defined and well understood meaning in legal context, and it does *not* include copyright infringement.
Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
The people the RIAA is suing don't have the money to pay for the legal paperwork. Lawyers don't work for free, and it's a lot harder to collect on a $250,000 settlement than it is a $5000 one. Granted, I just pulled that number out of my ass, but if the defendant can't pay the settlement, the lawyers come out of the RIAA's pocket.
> It states it is only illegal to reproduce a copywrited material if it exceeds 1,000 US dollars in value.
Is that possibly why the RIAA claims $100,000 loss for each infringement?
> Swiping copyrighted music is quite fine if the owner of the copyright gives permission
Swiping is a term that has been used to mean steal, at least in this context. If you have permission, you aren't stealing.
"I built my own car. It looks a lot like a Ford. Can Ford sue me for stealing?"
Yes, if your car is identical to a Ford or incorporates any patented technology (though its not theft, remember, its "intellectual property violation"). In theory Daimler/Chrysler could sue you for using an unlicensed internal combustion engine. But what has that got to do with music? You didn't write the music, perform it, or pay for the production, so what right do you have to distribute it? Because you like it? I like beer, but that doen't mean I can legally give it away on street corners...
"Does everyone who builds their own cars cost Ford a sale?"
Yes, in exactly the same way that buying a Toyota loses Ford a sale. But again, no correlation to music. File sharers aren't writing or performing, they're copying a finished product that someone else has invested time and money to make (this applies to indies as well, I'm not attempting to defend the RIAA here). File sharing produces nothing; it merely leeches off those who are productive.
"Would I have bought a Ford if I couldn't build my own?"
If you needed a car, you probably would (most Americans can't seem to live without one). But again, its a bad analogy, because file sharers aren't writing their own music, they're simply copying it. You are legally free to write all the music you want; if you want someone else to do it, be prepared to be asked for money. Simple enough? Likewise, if you want a car from Ford, you must expect to pay someone for their work. Its called "capitalism", and its been around for some time.
"Or just walked instead?"
Okay, as far as analogies go that's just plain stupid. You cannot be sued for sitting down with a guitar (or whatever) and playing a song written by someone else. Do file sharers do this? No, they want "THE PRODUCT"; they want THE song, performed by THE artist, and they're prepared to break the law to get it, which suggests that music has more value than just the price of the physical CD, negating the whole "I wouldn't have bought it" arguement. Whether you would have bought the music or not is purely hypothetical, but having downloaded it is FACT, having benefitted from it is FACT, not having compensated the performer is FACT.
"What does Ford not have now that I've stolen a car?"
To correct your analogy, if you stole the PLANS of a new design of car and built that, Ford could sue your ass off. If you stole an actual car off the production line, you'd be arrested for grand theft auto. If you built a car and violated none of Ford's IP, no one can touch you. Translated to music: if you copy music the RIAA will sue your ass off. If you steal a CD from a shop, you will be arrested for shopstealing. If you write your own music, no one can touch you.
I don't recall it. Have a reference? Hm. Here is (a relatively short) one.
h ef t
Oh, I guess I made the mistake of not mailing you a book. But this is from www.copyright.gov (you know the folks).
"Copyright" literally means the right to copy. The term has come to mean that body of exclusive rights granted by statute to authors for protection of their work. The owner of copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and, in the case of certain works, publicly perform or display the work; to prepare derivative works; in the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission; or to license others to engage in the same acts under specific terms and conditions.
But you don't like that, then how about:
THEFT, crimes. This word is sometimes used as synonymous with larceny, (q.v.) but it is not so technical. Ayliffe's Pand. 581 2 Swift's Dig. 309.
2. In the Scotch law, this is a proper and technical word, and signifies the secret and felonious abstraction of the property of another for sake of lucre, without his consent. Alison, Princ. Cr. Law of Scotl. 250.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/T
But lets look at what Justice Blackmun REALLY said:
(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use.
But wait, he didn't say it WASN'T theft, he said it doesn't "easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud"... AND you may just want to read DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)... I do NOT think you want to make it the core of your argument. In fact, even in this ruling, which you flaunt as if it was impressive, argues that the language is "ill-fitting" in regards as to what it is and isn't.
But IANAL.
Of course you probably missed the 'No Electronic Theft' Act which was signed by President Clinton in 1997. In it there is the following:
[*2] SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.
(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated paragraph relating to the term 'display', the following new paragraph:
"The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'.
(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
"(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000 shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.
Unless your argument is that Digital Theft is somehow NOT electronic theft (which I would LOVE for you to prove) you are wrong and I am right.
Now your argument may be "hey, I wasn't planning on making money off my theft" in which case I would say "prove it".
But, remember, IANAL...
P.S. Rather than rely on "sound bites" (quote bites?), it is best to read the resulting opinion. 1) you get a better sense of the problem that was being delt with 2) you find out that there may be some little things you missed..
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV