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!"
more reasons to love the supreme court (Score:3, Interesting)
Shot down? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Almost there... (Score:4, Interesting)
DMCA borders on Unconstitutionality (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:SCOTUS being... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Gee, is that 'all' we have to do? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's one thing that started this mess. The music industry saw a spike in shoplifting with certain CDs that promoted shoplifting. However, going in front of higher management and saying "I picked an artist that told listeneres to steal his new CD, and they did, and we're getting lots of complaints from retailers and our profit margin on this item sucks.", won't let you keep you your job.
Saying, "It's a new kind of problem, it involves the internet. Nobody could have anticipated that.", will let you keep your job, at least until boards of directors and CEO's wise up to the fact that you are using internet piracy to cover up a host of other mistakes.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Gee, is that 'all' we have to do? (Score:1, Interesting)
And so what if the industry promotes sex and violence? If promoting sex and violence is wrong, it is wrong to download music without compensating the owners. If promoting sex and violence is right, it is still wrong to download music without compensation. What the music industry chooses to promote is irrelevant to the issue of whether downloading music is ethical or not.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
At least one group already has (Webcaster Alliance), Findlaw has lots of good info on laws and cases, including a whole section on our good buddies, the RIAA:
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/riaa/ [findlaw.com]
I recall reading at one time about a group of lawyers who theorized that the mass lawsuits against large groups of people who were unlikely to be able to afford legal representation, while offering a "settlement" less that the likely costs of defense, amounted to extortion. I can't find any source for it now, though.
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:5, Interesting)
Worked like a charm on me. I was afraid to download music and I haven't thought of a single CD I want to buy since then. If I hear it on the radio I know they're going to play it every 15 minutes until I scream so I don't bother buying those.
Re:I don't understand fully... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing.
and why does having john doe lawsuits make it better than if they knew your name? Who's fielding those lawsuits?
It means if some random company asks your ISP for your billing information, your ISP isn't required to give it to them. If the RIAA wants to sue you for copyright infringement, they must first file a lawsuit with a court, then the judge has to issue a subpoena which gets presented to the ISP, and THEN the ISP has to turn over your name/address/etc. Previously, ISPs would just hand over this information without any involvement by the courts, which meant 1) anyone could claim to be a representative of the RIAA and get your personal information just by asking (and you might never know about it), 2) the RIAA could harass you privately (without going through a court) and you would not be guaranteed legal representation, and 3) they could potentially coerce you into signing some kind of non-disclosure agreement, so nothing that happened could ever be made public (unless you want to face further consequences from breaking the NDA).
If they go through the courts, everything is out in the open, there's judicial review, there's due process, there's accountability. Of course, if you're guilty of copyright infringement, you're still guilty of copyright infringement, and once the suit is filed, you can still settle it out of court - but this way, your rights are protected. Plus, it makes the process slightly more of a pain in the ass for the RIAA, which might discourage them from harassing people without good reason.
Remember those lawsuits against the people who didn't own a computer, or who were supposedly sharing files with Kazaa but they had a Mac and there wasn't yet a Mac client available? This ruling might also cut down on that a bit, by making the ISP responsible to the court to turn over the correct customer information. I'm not sure.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Premature? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"I'm not a lawyer but I play on on /." Disney ! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Whew, for awhile there (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry, but I can't find anything credible with that argument. I think the vast majority of people download for one of two reasons. They either already like the song and won't pay money for the single (or the CD it comes on), or they are trying out new music for the first time that they wouldn't hear otherwise.
Whenever I've downloaded new music, and found it worth listening to, I've *always* bought the CD. Maybe I'm in the minority, but online sharing of music in my experience always leads to more purchases, not fewer.
Harvard University [harvard.edu] will back me up on this.
Not really. (Score:4, Interesting)
Downloading (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What is copyright violation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mine was that there are contexts where words have *very* specific meanings, such as laws, and that while discussing within such contexts misuse of such words is even more irritating than nitpicking. If you discuss illegal copying with your friends, call it what you want. If you go on dicuss its legal background, it's silly to use unprecise words. And here we are discussing a case with regard to the SC. It doesn't get much more legal than that.
Did you choose to write "sickening" to mean an obviously exaggerated expression of annoyance?
No, I used "sickening" as in "picking up the wording the parent poster used".
Sort of like how people use "stealing" as a metaphor for "copying music without paying for it" when referring to music downloaders? Do you see where I'm going with this?
Yeah, something like this. Would you also use such metaphors while talking about your medical status? (If you do, I hope nobody mistakes it to be of psychosomatic origin.) Do you see where I'm going with this?
Lighten up, all you semantic nitpickers. We use metaphors all the time. Get over it.
Next time you should choose to reply to someone you actually disagrees with you. Makes your argument less a joke.