Supreme Court Rejects RIAA Appeal 447
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!"
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John Doe (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, this doesn't make P2P copyrighted music stealing legal...
Re:I think this decribes it best (Score:4, Insightful)
Not final yet. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they'd heard it and decided against the RIAA, rather than just refusing to hear it, it would be final.
Shot down? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor does it make trading music files online "stealing" no matter how much they want the world to believe that it is.
Re:I think this decribes it best (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless of course, you were just joking.
Re:great! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:5, Insightful)
Before we all rush to celebrate (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand fully... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:great! (Score:2, Insightful)
Premature? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:great! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I think this decribes it best (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
human rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, is that 'all' we have to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:great! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Rethink post. (Score:2, Insightful)
can someone explain..... (Score:5, Insightful)
am i the only one?
Re:great! (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think this decribes it best (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:great! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely. Some other examples:
Fair use rights (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It didn't shoot down the DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
You can thank their subscribers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sean D.
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
What is copyright violation? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
"I'm not a lawyer but I play on on /." (Score:4, Insightful)
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! [badnarik.org]
Re:What is copyright violation? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sick of this whole debate, you're both wrong.
Illegally copying music is not strictly "theft" or "stealing"
Funny, it seems like you are agreeing with the person who said that copyright infringement is not theft.
It is still illegal, it is still a tort.
Oh, for fuck's sake. Don't tell me there's another one of you imbeciles that thinks just because somebody points out that two different ilegal actions are, in fact, different, this means that the person automatically thinks one of those illegal actions is perfectly okay. How many fucking times does this need to be explained?
you are depriving the copyright-holder of the right to distribute the copyright-bearing work as he/she/it sees fit.
That's completely false, and even a child could see that. The copyright holder can still distribute the work as they see fit. It's plainly obvious.
What you might have meant to say was that copyright infringement undermines the ability of the copyright holder to control the scarcity of the work in question. It is this scarcity that is used in conjunction with the demand for the work to enable the copyright holder to profit.
As is obvious, you aren't depriving the copyright holder of profit. If you did, where does that profit go? If I download something, does money automatically drain out of the copyright holder's bank account? No. They never had it to begin with. What they had was the ability to control scarcity.
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.
It didn't need reforming. It was reformed against the public's wishes by corrupt politicians. It's plainly obvious that the individual isn't served by the U.S.A. government any more.
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
Who are you to say what his intentions are? I only infringe on copyright when the work is older than 14 years. I'll be damned if you are going to tell me what I do and don't want.
I'm just so sick of people arguing about whether the terms "theft" or "piracy" are accurate.
Theft and copyright infringement are two different actions with different consequences. Copyright infringement may be illegal, but in many, many cases, it causes no harm, and can therefore be morally justifiable. You cannot say the same thing about theft. Somebody who calls copyright infringement theft is judging hundreds of thousands of people for crimes they didn't commit and harm they didn't cause. That's what I am sick of.
I repeat: you are depriving someone of their rights when you download copyright-protected content without permission
Copyright isn't a right. Copyright is a privilege. It is called copyright because it is the privilege temporarily granted by the state to decide who has the right to copy. Your mistake is assuming that it is a right granted to somebody; in actual fact it is the act of removing those rights from everybody else.
Re:Whew, for awhile there - DON'T GET HAPPY YET! (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:What is copyright violation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Semantics. Yes. It's a comment on what the words mean. Like:
Person A : "hey, look at my pet hippopotamus"
Person B : "that's not a hippopotamus, it's a parrot"
Person B's comment certainly concerns semantics. Is it therefore somehow wrong for him to say it? Or irrelevant to the conversation? Semantics matter.
It is still illegal, it is still a tort. You are still depriving someone.
Copyright infringement is indeed illegal. Sometimes it's even a crime, like theft, not just a tort.
Blackmail, murder, theft, copyright infringement, parking on yellow lines and treason are all illegal. That doesn't mean that the words are intechangeable. Just like cats, dogs, hippopotamuses, giraffes and humans are all mammals. Expect to be corrected if you get them mixed up. Yes, that's semantics. Semantics matter.
Re:Premature? (Score:5, Insightful)
If businesses feel that operating in the USA means they've going to get sued by one of the old companies, they're either less likely to start up, or will operate from a freer environment.
As a country, the USA could end up in deep trouble in about 20 years - an ageing population, crippled with debt and little innovation because of markets controlled by a few players.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
OT sig (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:I think this decribes it best (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is copyright violation? (Score:1, Insightful)
Based on this, your proposal to work within the system is unworkable. The history of the repeal of unjust laws always includes resistance or at least refusal to comply. Seldom or never has it been accomplished by docile little drones tugging their forelocks and humbly suggesting that perhaps Master might give them a little relief.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:1, Insightful)
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.