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!"
The Supreme Court of USA for those of you who (like me) didn't have a clue at first.
It does mean that the circuit will continue to rule that way. Also, it means that other circuits, when faced with this issue, may find this case persuasive authority. Eventually there may be a circuit split, and the Supreme Court may choose to step in to resolve the disagreement. But for now, it is a victory within about 10% of the federal court system.
You are not your blog
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.
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
You're allowed to listen to it, but not to copy it. Even the laws saying you can back up CDs you own only allow the owner of the CD to make and own backup copies, not anyone who borrows it.
It's a nice thought, though - just a shame it doesn't hold water.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
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 :)
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red. htm
Laws can chage and acts like the NET act have changed the definition.
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.
Judges have a sort of gentlemens' agreement to honor each other's rulings. They don't have to. Another judge could certainly rule differently in a separate, yet related case. But as soon as one of the cases comes up, the lawyer should say, "look at this related case, where the last judge decided we were right." And generally, the judge will see that there is legal precident, and barring any major differences, rule the same way. This is necessary for consistancy, and many judges will uphold precident, even if they may have decided contrarily to the old judgement. Now that the Supreme Court has refused the case, the precident has been set.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Correct. To elaborate, the 'rubber-stamp' DMCA subpoena process still applies to copyright infringements hosted on the ISPs servers, but not to P2P content, which is hosted on the user's computer.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Or is this simply until the RIAA frames their arguments differently.
/. article and more here.
That's happening right now, but in the Legislative branch of the government. You probably already know this, but the **IA are pumping bills into Capitol Hill that are essentially restating proposed new law that was already shot down in the form of the INDUCE ACT.
It's all a continued, concerted effort to emasculate the Sony/Betamax decision. Shameless.
see the previous
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
No, they didn't.
The Court simply declined to grant cert to the case and consider it. They have said multiple times that their refusal does not convey anything about the merits of the case:
STATE OF MD. v. BALTIMORE RADIO SHOW , 338 U.S. 912 (1950)
"Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated."
Unless enough justices have a personal interest in the case, the Supreme Court rarely considers a case except to resolve conflicting decisions among the US Courts of Appeals.
We need a way to moderate original postings "uninformed".
start here
before they would just fire off a letter to the ISP who may or may not capitulate and send them your info
not they have to file a lawsuit against John Doe @ 65.67.883.212, and get the name via a legal process which has oversight and protection for the accused.
hope that helps
i saw the baby, and the baby looked at me
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.
The police can get an arrest warrant based on dna evidence. However, they can't compel a suspect to give sample dna without a warrant issued by a judge based on showing of probable cause.
With a lawsuit filed, you can challenge the subpoena.
Ok, it's like this. Verizon gets a subpoena for your IP as part of RIAA V. John Doe 1e+38. Verizon then informs you that they have a request to turn over the records. You can then hire an attorney to fight the subpoena, while your John Doe-ness is protected.
The big benefit is judicial oversite into the activities of RIAA. If RIAA wants to run roughshod over you, they need to hire a local lawyer and file a lawsuit in the correct venue.
Local judges, who may have to face being elected, may be a bit less inclined to blindly turn over records that may name people they know.
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.
And by the way, I think Bush would side with the RIAA
I'm not a Bush fan, but the TV/Movies/Music Industry seems to have higher rate of donations to Democrats than Republicans, so I don't thin that it will get any better under Kerry.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
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.
The caselaw in the US is that the person who causes the reproduction to occur is the infringer as to the downloading. Almost always, this is the downloader, since he caused a new copy to be made by requesting the download. Only if his computer were somehow downloading things without having been instructed to by the user (perhaps in a malware situation?) would he be likely to get off the hook.
It's a fairly common sense rule, especially given that the reproduction occurs on the downloader's end.
-- 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.
They can file in any district where there is a suitable defendant. Personal jurisdiction is only concerned with whether the courts can get jurisdiction over the defendant, not the plaintiff.
I'm pretty sure (95%) that's right.
fuck you.