RSSCourt: ISPs Not Required to Comply With RIAA
By David Worthington | Published December 21, 2003, 5:23 PM
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down a lower court's ruling requiring Internet providers to comply with copyright subpoenas served on behalf of the recording industry.
As a result, the Recording Industry Association of America's anti-piracy campaign waged against individuals downloading music now faces a major setback. Privacy advocates hail the decision as a blow against the RIAA's controversial solution to stem piracy.
Although the court's decision does not legalize the downloading of copyrighted music, it is now much more difficult and expensive for industry sleuths to track down "egregious" file-swappers, which the RIAA subsequently targets with lawsuits.
The heart of the matter is a 1998 law passed well before the explosive growth of peer to peer networks. According to the justices, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) cannot directly police the activities of such networks.
In its ruling, the court wrote that the DCMA, "betrays no awareness whatsoever that Internet users might be able directly to exchange files containing copyrighted works."
The RIAA made headlines this past autumn, filing lawsuits against 261 individuals for copyright infringement, including a 12-year-old girl from New York. The association has threatened thousands more with possible legal action.
In response to widespread criticism over its tactics, the RIAA instituted a "clean state" program intended to offer amnesty to file-sharers who come clean and sign a declaration saying that they will never do it again.
The idea of softening its behavior by establishing an amnesty initiative has not silenced the RIAA's ideological adversaries.
Wendy Seltzer, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told BetaNews that the Appeals Court ruling, "stops the most abusive tactic, blanketing ISPs with subpoenas demanding "expeditious" disclosure of user identities. It does not prevent copyright holders from enforcing their rights through John Doe lawsuits."
A John Doe lawsuit requires judicial oversight prior to obtaining a defendant's identity. The EFF compares the power of the RIAA to subpoena users prior to this ruling as tantamount to the Patriot Act's stringent measures to combat terrorists.
EFF's Seltzer explained the ruling means, "that connecting to the Internet doesn't require giving up your expectations of privacy."
Despite facing declining retail sales, records labels are seeing a resurgence of music buying online. Apple's iTunes Music Store recently surpassed 25 million downloads, while Dell, Microsoft, and even former industry bad-boy Napster are vying for a space in the market for legal music downloads.
Earlier this week, America Online threw the switch on a one-click shortcut to iTunes music purchases throughout its music properties, offering up legal downloading to its 25 million subscribers. Apple also modified iTunes to better accommodate AOL users.
When asked if RIAA would be better off advocating legal alternatives such as iTunes rather than aggressively pursuing litigation, Seltzer told BetaNews, "iTunes is one option, and surely a better one than litigation. Even better than offering iTunes as THE solution, however, would be a future in which the artists and music companies were willing to discuss licensing of peer-to-peer distribution, alongside options such as iTunes."
The EFF recommends a voluntary collective license system that would simultaneously blanket music fans from lawsuits while also fairly compensating artists.
We all know the real reason why the RIAA is going after these people. They aren't making as much money now as they were when CD's were first introduced. What they have to realise is their target audience being teenagers, have a lot more thing to spend their money on today rather than 10 years ago. The big one?? Mobile phones. I know of kids spending their paltry $100 dollar a week fast food paycheck entirely on mobile phone calls. The music industry doesn't get this. People have also finished updating their old vinyl collectins to CD, another spot where sales have dropped off. The internet gets blamed for piracy, which i do agree is a problem, but instead of the RIAA pumping their money into lawsuits against 12 year old kids which makes them look like complete and causes public backlash towards them why don't they invest their money in marketing strategies. Find out how much extra the average kid has to spend in a month and target their CD prices to that goal.
Score: 0
|Score: 0
|Score: 0
|Score: 0
|This is actually a VERY big win, and the courts probably did it becuase they already saw damn near any company that could start to jump on the sue using the DCMA..
I know that I had a friend get contacted from Universal Studios saying they would sue becuase his nephew started to download 2 fast 2 furious. Forget the fact they got about 200kb of it before it was canceled.....
On another note, if you do not own a full video, or a watchable copy, is it still piracy?
Score: 0
|good question.
i think the answer to that is in the motive of the user. if the intent was to illegally download it (w/o owning a copy), and perhaps to distribute for profit (or even not), the fact that it is in unwatchable condition-or not even a completed download-is still grounds enough to be considered piracy.
just my opinion.
Score: 0
|Question to ponder?
If you try to hack into a person's pc but don't gain ACCESS because of their security are you still a hacker and breaking the law?
Score: 0
|Everyone should honestly answer "still a hacker"
Though I can see vkchu side, to a point. I mean if you 12-year old is hear from friends it's ok to do this then I don't think they are trying to do anything wrong knowingly and should be warned and then punished...but not punished and warned at once. Then again parents should be watching what there kids install and do a little closer at that age (though most 12-year olds know more than there parents, so there is the problem with that).
Score: 0
|What if you own a copy of say 2 fast 2 furious on dvd, (i.e. you bought it at best buy), but want to also download a copy to watch on your computer as well on the road. Technically this isnt illegal is it. But obviously they do not know you own a copy and can monitor you and subpoena you for this. Boy i would LOVE for them to send me a subpoena for something, because i know my friends would be MORE THAN HAPPY to donate their cd's/movies to me just to prove them wrong. (not that i advocate downloading copyrighted material.. ahem)
-scott
Score: 0
|I think it is along the same lines if you try and break into someone's house, it's still illegal even if you don't get in.
Score: 0
|What is wrong with Amerika & most of the world is that the Government schools & education system purposely leave out teaching of LAW & Legalities so that we must be forever slaves to ignorant lawyers & blackrobed conspirators. Until recently, I was involved with federal code enforcement (EPA 15yrs). So, I have my own copy of the federal reg's and my own law library that I have read and studied. To answer the question that threads through this forum of weather downloading software or other "bits & bytes" are legal or not one must "FIRST" know & understand the applicability of the law. One must know if one is subject to the referenced ACT or CODE. In most countries, you have a set or bill of "rights" that all governments must OBEY or one may challenge the authority.If found uncontitutional, this gives one the ability to invoke Quo-Warranto, which dis-solves the governments' BOND or Charter till such time that another one can be established. We must go beyond just being involved with weak organizations such as the ACLU. They have never really fought back for freedom, but rather "human rights" = servant/(subject) consumer rights. Back to the original question about legalness of downloading. Unless you are engaged in commerce for monitary gain, no crime has been committed. That 12 yr old girl that was singled out for prosecution. That was clear FRAUD, because she first- was a minor, second- she clearely couldn't have understood the law or how it applies to her, 3- she clearly wasn't engaged in commerce. This was clearly extortion & fraud and is with most every "enforcement" letter of this kind sent out. Not to mention that private corporations, without anykind of court judgement for each case, are engageing in "law enforcement". This is Color of law and is punishable under the federal code usually with severe penalties USC Title 42, 1983-1987.
Score: 0
|My limited understanding of copyright law is that for an infringment to happen the work needs to contain the heart of what is being infringed. And if downloading the 20th century fox logo (or what ever logo that it starts with; can't fit much of a movie in 200kb, just a few frames), then you better not go to there website (as they must have the logo on the page).
I don't think 200kb of a 1+ gb movie contains the heart of the work.
Score: 0
|I've also been involved with Code Enforcement for about 15 years. I take some exception to the above post. The author seems to be confused regarding the difference between criminal prosecution and civil prosecution (AKA lawsuit).
Copyright violations are not criminal unless for profit (there is some exception for providing access to several thousand dollars worth of copyrighted material).
Lawsuits are civil actions wherin the penalty is monetary rather than possible jail time.
The burden of proof for civil action is much lower than criminal action. Civil requires "preponderence of evidence". That is the judge must find the odds are at least 51% that the defendant committed the offense.
Criminal prosecution requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" to obtain a conviction. Criminal prosecution also requires that the court provide legal defense for those that cannot afford their own attorney.
Score: 0
|OK- now unless you guys out there are morons think about where you put your files,pics,music,videos. kazza and other p2p progs. use there own folder called my shared folder now if you want to get cought with these files then move to your my music,my video,and my pic folder on your computer get them files out of the my shared folder cause that is the way that the networks and isp's can tell how mauch and what you have downloaded.
Trust me on this one "after all who do you think helped get kazza and morph. going to start with.
Keep downloading all you want i do and to the government "Have you guys ever heard of free speech just leave us and the internet alone and to all the music artist the are complaining about all of us downloading there music---- all i got to say is you made the music so we could jam to you guys and now that you bands have made millions of dollors its time for the rest of the world to get the music free besides there aint a band out there that has a cd that all the songs are good " " long live the power of MP3
Score: 0
|