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 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.
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...
Oh, cool, now I can go back to stealing music for stuffing into my iPod. :/
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
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.
Unless of course, you were just joking.
Ever heard the term "civil disobedience"? It's where you do something illegal (not immoral) for the right reasons, because the law is wrong.
They want to try legally protect an outmoded business practice, and create an artificial scarcity. Kinda like DeBeers. Both are wrong. The more of this that happens, the better.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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.
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?
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
i'm not saying what the riaa is doing is right, but if you're downloading music you're taking a product for free that you can also buy in the stores. if i have a cd out in stores, but everyone just downloads the music for free, how am i supposed to support myself in order to continue creating music?
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
They want to try legally protect an outmoded business practice, and create an artificial scarcity.
Now see, I know what you meant to say but you didn't say it correctly. What difference does it make that it is an "outmoded business practice"? So what? What matters is that they are a monopoly and have the power to keep people buying their music at artifically inflated prices.
The more people trade music online the more draconian laws will be presented to those that have the power to make them. The more music we continue to buy from the monopolies the more money they will have to sue us, fill the pockets of the law makers, and continue to bombard us with crap fed through the filters of consolidated media outlets.
That's why we should ignore their shit and tell everyone we know to do the same. THAT will hopefully dampen their reign. Not trading their music and giving them more legal fodder.
Not as far as I can see. All this says, is that if the RIAA wishes to subpoena the personal information of an ISPs customer, they must actually file a lawsuit to have a basis for access to this data, rather than simply demanding the data.
If you were "stealing" misic for stuffing into your iPod, the RIAA can file a John Doe lawsuit, subpoena your personal data from your ISP, correct the personal data in the lawsuit to reflect this, and sue you, or settle, as they see fit.
Never underestimate the power of fear. I'm not saying that it's good, but it has definitely been effective. The recording industry's relentless barrage of lawsuits (and settlements) have deterred a significant number of people from "stealing" music.
Will it end piracy? Of course not. Are those p2p networks helping with album sales for obscure artists? Probably. Will it drive down the sales of the next pop artist's album? That's debatable. The thing is the RIAA is seeing less money and it's scared. In turn, they had to react the best way they knew how. "Trade songs online and we'll sue you."
As scummy as we think they are, they'll find a way to exist. It's just unfortunate that the first reaction to adversity is to strike fear amongst the population.
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
"...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..."
Civil disobedience? You spit on everyone that has risked life and limb for actual social problems. The music industry's tactics don't qualify or even logically lead to taking their music as civil disobedience.
Stealing food because the government only gives food to certain groups is a valid trigger for civil disobedience. Stealing music is stupid.
If you want the music industry's garbage, give them their asking price. If you suspect illegal cartel behavior, file a lawsuit. Stealing is not an option.
Laws are for people with no friends.
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
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
Civil disobedience is when you commit the crime and then except the punishment in the hopes that it will seem unjust to those watching. It is not committing the crime and then hiding. If you want to perform civil disobedience, download a bunch of illegal MP3s and then turn yourself in. Don't plea-bargain, get your day in court and use it to explain your position of how you think that people should work for free (or what ever twisted logic you use to justify taking the works of others without their permission).
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Every time the word "steal" in this context, it is demonstrated that the speaker is ignorantly trying to apply the definition of a crime in which a possession is taken from its rightful owner against his/her will to a completely different crime, based on artificial restrictions that at least some people believe to be unjust.
Except for the fact that according to all posted statistics, the RIAA companies are making MORE money per year since swapping became an issue. It's free advertisement for them and more profits in the end. But they still play it as they are losing money when last year they earned over $10 billion. Up from the year before even.
I think another reason this failed is the connection to the gun industry. Remember the lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Gun manufacturers aren't responsible for killing people, the users are. Same with this. The software company isn't responsible for what the user does with the software, the end user is the resposible party.
If SCOTUS let the RIAA sue the software companies, then it may open the door for similar lawsuits in other industries.
I could be wrong, anybody have examples to prove otherwise?
No Brains, No Headaches
Then quit making music. Really.
The world has enough music. It's got enough novels, plays, and short stories, too. If you quit, no one will complain.
However, I'd urge you not to quit -- and instead do what billions of other artists do when the art isn't paying the bills: take another job. I've written two novels and am finishing a third. They haven't gotten published. Maybe they suck, maybe they don't. But I didn't do it for the money. I did it because I wanted to make art. Maybe it's bad art. Who knows? But money's not the point. Art is -- and no artist worth his or her art will "quit" because they can't make money. (And if you do quit because you can't money, then you probably shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.)
Christ. Do it for the art -- not for the money. If you do it for the money, then you're as much a whore as the corporate pimps who support your habit.
Wait tables. Teach school. Find new ways to support your art.
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!
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.
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.
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!"
From personal observation, it's standard procedure to portray yourself as the victim/underdog regardless of how much a dominant monopolistic arrogant bastard individual/organization/company/government you are.
Thus they paint the picture of the starving artist whom we are defrauding. Nevermind the t-shirts and concert ticket sales where artists actually get most of their cut.
Then they equate it to stealing which is easier to grasp than copyright infringement. After all, Joe Sixpack and his kids usually don't deal with copyrights much but they definitely have STUFF that can be stolen. They can relate and stealing is bad.
I do believe the ultimate solution is more quality content. My latest purchase was Manson's "Lest We Forget" with the DVD (can't seem to play it in MDK 10CE, though so I'm not too thrilled). If I believe a band makes good music (and this is definitely personal preference), I'll spend money for their work. I'm also in favor of having bonus content -- videos, pictures, behind-the-scenes footage, etc.
The recording industry's relentless barrage of lawsuits (and settlements) have deterred a significant number of people from "stealing" music.
Yes, but have they caused those people to start buying music? I'd say no, so the whole legal adventure is/was a waste of time.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I only recognize the original limitations of the Constitution that only people over 21 can vote, that blacks are only worth 3/5 of a white vote, that women are not allowed to vote and that States select Senators, not the citizens directly.
And fuck you and anyone else who says otherwise!
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
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!
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.
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.
The problem really lies in the fact that most bands nowadays (ok, this sounds like a "when I was your age..." lecture so time to tune out) can't put together 12 good songs. You'll have one or two worth listening to and fillers in between.
I'm not willing to pay for two or three songs for almost the price of a DVD. Obviously the thing here is that "worth listening to" clause. Make more music that's worth listening to and you'll have people buying the cd's.
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
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
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.