COURT: RIAA CAN'T HAVE NAMES OF DOWNLOADERS

Drudge Report ^

[rit]

Federal appeals court on Friday rejected efforts by recording industry to compel nation's Internet providers to identify subscribers accused of illegally distributing music online.

[bfree]

Downloading for personal listening doesn't bother me, downloading to resell does bother me.

[zook]

Depends on what kind of cereal. Maybe not Oatmeal Squares, but definitely Grape Nuts.

[hc87]

RIAA issued subpoenas to Verizon for the names of certain users for whom they had IP addresses. Verizon moved to have the subpoenas held invalid on the grounds that a "safe harbor" provision in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act for telecommunications providers frees them of any obligation to cooperate. Trial court rejected argument and told Verizon to produce names.

On appeal, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals held that Verizon does fall within the safe harbor provision because the records sought dealt with its role as a transmitter of data (one of the safe harbor provisions), rahter than its role as a storer of data (where they would have had to remove the information from their system under the law).

Opinion here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/riaaverizon121903.pdf

Several notes:

1. Court says this is issue for Congress to decide. In other words, this was a statutory interpretation, not Constitutional matter. And Congress can change the law tomorrow.

2. The decision only applies to DC,not anywhere else in the country. While this opinion will be influential, there is at least a potential for other circuits to interpret the DMCA subpoena provision differently.

3. The author of the opinion was Douglas Ginsburg, the former nominee to the US Supreme Court who had a little marijuana issue derail his nomination many years ago.

[zook]

That's a great point.

[SB00]

Thanks for the info hc87

[John Robertson]

You shouldn't have to pay anything. Everything you want should be free. YOU should be the one who decides what the price of something should be, no matter what its costs are.

Just because a court says it's okay, doesn't mean it's not stealing. I'm referring to a higher value system than "the law." Taking someone's intellectual property without compensation is thievery.

Now bring on all the talk about "the big mega-corporations, Man, they're like so corrupt and greedy," because I always love hearing so-called conservatives sound like a bunch of maggot-infested longhairs from the seventies when they justify their selfishness.

[ßuddaßudd]

Thanks for the heads up on ES5. A little far fetched as you say, but anything is possible these days.

[rit]

Do you have a reference to the definition of "telecommunications provider" with respect to the DMCA? I remember that Napster could not claim "safe harbor" protection.

[honeygrl]

nener nener nener!

[Smogger]

I can understand why people pirate now. I went to the local music/video store at the mall to get a copy of Toy Story 1 or 2. The price for each was $29.99. My Lord, what are they thinking. The other DVDs I wanted to check out (T3, Bruce Almighty, others) were all $21.00 or more.

DVD's are a good value. You can buy T3 for 19 bucks. That's 5 Gigabytes of data. The movie, outtakes, games, and what have you. The movie alone cost 150 million to make. For the same $19 the RIAA's members will try to sell you one 650 meg CD with only 400 megs of data on it consisting of 12 crappy tracks and one track you like. Consumers aren't stupid.

[Smogger]

So whats the current hot stuff?

Every heard of eDonkey2000?

[mylife]

Every heard of eDonkey2000?

cant say I'm familiar with it

[mylife]

Check out BitTorrent.

Thanks I will later

[brownsfan]

Since the demise of Napster and then Aimster, I'm back to buying nothing. Good work, RIAA. Brilliant.

And they claim music sales are down. After the antics of the RIAA, I haven't heard of a rise in music sales. These guys, (the RIAA), are unable to adapt. Therefore, they will become extinct. Just not soon enough IMO.

[honeygrl]

"As conservatives, aren't we supposed to support morality and upright behavior?"

Actually, we are supposed to support limited government.

[honeygrl]

"Those who download without paying are stealing and what I call "digital welfare" whores."

So you are calling the 12yr old little girl they sued a whore?

[honeygrl]

"and his terrorist brethren on Guantanomo will be able to download freely without being harrassed by the recording industry. "

I'm pretty certain internet access is forbidden at Guantanomo.

[Grit]

Mylife's Crime:

I dloaded all of the BBC's "coupling" episodes off file sharing, and they are good qaulity, but they dont approach the quality of the DVD's I purchased!

Mylife's Excuse:

You see dloading the episodes was legal (fair use)

Commish's Crime:

So now I will download a movie, check it out, if it worthy of the collection I then go out and purchase it.

Commish's Excuse:

I use the download route as a screening tool.

I'm not passing judgement on your activity, but your arguments are very weak.

[moehoward]

I still think the best comparison is the Public Library=File Sharing comparison that was raised during the Napster hearings.

[jayef]

So I should be tied to an antiquated method of distribution which forces me to pay monopoly prices? No thanks. I believe the market will solve the problem. If you would prefer that the state and a handful of media conglomerates solve the problem for you, then have at it.

You know, we're not all out here downloading Britney Spears and Metallica. There are actually folks (both artists and consumers) who thrive on this form of communication. Not all downloaders are criminals, so please get that idea out of your head.

Some of us are out here making music and listening to music that our peers make. Who are you to tell us that we can't do that?