Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Riaa News

  1. #1
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,605
    some of you know this so this is for the ones that don't

    In an astounding blow to the RIAA's campaign to cripple file-sharing, the United States Court of Appeals, located in Washington DC has ruled the RIAA's subpoenas, based on the DMCA, are invalid for the following reasons:

    1) 512(h) (subpoena notification subsection of the DMCA) does not authorize the issuance of a subpoena to an ISP acting solely as a conduit for communications the content of which is determined by others;

    2) the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction to issue a subpoena with no underlying ??case or controversy?? pending before the court;

    3) violates the First Amendment because it lacks sufficient safeguards to protectn an internet user?s ability to speak and to associate anonymously.

    From the Court's ruling, "The RIAA?s notification identifies absolutely no material Verizon could remove or access to which it could disable, which indicates to us that 512(3)(A) concerns means of infringement other than P2P file sharing."

    In one of the more significant points of the ruling, the court stated the RIAA could not meet the subpoena requirements of subsection "h", because that subsection refers to material that an ISP can directly control. Since all P2P traffic is between peers, and the ISP merely acts as a conduit, subsection "h" simply does not apply to Verizon. With this enormous precedent set, it will surely apply to all ISP's.

    Cary Sherman, RIAA President, weighed in on the ruling. "Regardless of this decision, we will continue to defend our rights online on behalf of artists, songwriters and countless others involved in bringing music to the public. We can and will continue to file copyright infringement lawsuits against file sharers who engage in illegal activity."

    He added that the decision "is inconsistent with both the view of Congress and the findings of the District Court. It unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation. Verizon is solely responsible for a legal process that will now be less sensitive to the interests of its subscribers who engage in illegal activity."

    It will be interesting to see how the RIAA plans to maintain their campaign's ferocity without the benefit of the DMCA's subpoena process.

    The RIAA began its campaign against the file-sharing community on June 26, 2003, and has subpoenaed nearly 1,000 individuals. Verizon, along with Pacific Bell Internet Services, have vigorously fought the RIAA. Verizon was forced by a lower court to give up the names of individuals cited by the RIAA as copyright infringers; however they refused to comply with this request and began a long appeal process.

    In a case many analysts felt impossible to win, this is a victory for everyone; not just Verizon, the ISPs or the individuals pursued by the RIAA. Anyone with concern for their rights can relish this day of renewed freedom for the Internet community.

    Keep in mind while this is an important win for the Internet community, this is certainly not the end of the RIAA or its struggle against P2P. This will most certainly continue to drag on until it reaches the Supreme Court.


    You can read the court ruling here. (PDF format)

  2. File Sharing   -   #2
    Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    594
    Is this good or bad?

  3. File Sharing   -   #3
    ZaZu's Avatar I know stuff ...
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    @Home
    Posts
    1,966
    Originally posted by Mik3ll@27 December 2003 - 11:05
    Is this good or bad? 
    Probably irrelevent, the damage to Fasttrack has already been done.

    off topic: if you dont stop poking that penguine I'm gonna have to put P.E.T.A. on to you!!


    If you attack the establishment long enough and hard enough, they will make you a member of it.
    -- Art Buchwald --

  4. File Sharing   -   #4
    Originally posted by ZaZu@27 December 2003 - 18:42
    Probably irrelevent, the damage to Fasttrack has already been done.
    Not irrelevent, but too late . However i wonder if that desicion could mean that Sharman cant not make the companies block kl sites either? Its the same, people have the expresion right, companies cant be sued for allowit!! :

    if you dont stop poking that penguine I'm gonna have to put P.E.T.A. on to you!!
    AGREE!!

  5. File Sharing   -   #5
    Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    594
    whats P.E.T.A?

    EDIT: I searched on Google, im not abusing the penguin though.

  6. File Sharing   -   #6
    Lick My Lovepump
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Age
    15
    Posts
    2,698
    All it means is that the RIAA can no longer force your ISP to give them information about your filesharing habits.

  7. File Sharing   -   #7
    The pinguin guy is funny!

  8. File Sharing   -   #8
    ZaZu's Avatar I know stuff ...
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    @Home
    Posts
    1,966


    If you attack the establishment long enough and hard enough, they will make you a member of it.
    -- Art Buchwald --

  9. File Sharing   -   #9
    The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are fucking crazy. I heard that one of them wanted a purse made out of her skin when she died*.

    *I would really like to buy it when it is up for auction but I don't think I will be able to afford it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •