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...
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"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Porn?
I'd make porn.
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 :)
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
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?"
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red. htm
Laws can chage and acts like the NET act have changed the definition.
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.
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.
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
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!
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?
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!"
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!!
start here
Civil disobedience is a serious thing, not a tool for disaffected consumers upset at the music cartel. Civil disobedience is a tool that instills fear into the government for the real purpose of causing them buckle or face revolution.
But I'm not willing to give up my privacy in the process.
A key aspect to civil disobedience is in fact getting caught, being a nuisance to the system. Cloaking your identity is the antithesis of civil disobedience.
This decision is a purely procedural thing. We have no new case law, and no new precedent.
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!
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!
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.
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.'"
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."
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.