Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Appeals Court Rules Against RIAA in DMCA Subpoena Case

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the no-records-for-you dept.

Music 839

JohnTheFisherman writes "My Way News is reporting that a Federal appeals court ruled that the RIAA can't compel the ISP to provide the name of the downloaders in their case against Verizon. In fact, the court said that one of the arguments the RIAA used 'borders upon the silly.' I believe most here will agree that this is great news." We've been following this case for a while.

cancel ×

839 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

post the first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765485)

Gollum bites off Frodo's finger and falls into Mt Doom with The One Ring

Re:post the first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765572)

No shit? You figure that out by watching the fuckin movie?

hee hee (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765488)


[...] rejecting the trade group's claims that Verizon was responsible for downloaded music because such data files traverse its network.

Well, it appears the RIAA will have to focus on a different network layer: they'll start suing the cat-5 and fiber optic manufacturers..

Try "Legislative" Layer. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765571)

The top of the OSI model.

The question will be who will buy more congressmen, the RIAA + MPA, or telecommunications providers.

Re:hee hee (4, Interesting)

tds67 (670584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765681)

Well, it appears the RIAA will have to focus on a different network layer: they'll start suing the cat-5 and fiber optic manufacturers..

Why not go to the source--DARPA? They started this damned Internet thing in the first place. Let the federal government deal with these RIAA arseholes...that would be sweet justice, because the feds are the enablers (via DMCA and other stupid laws) of the RIAA anyway.

Re:hee hee (1, Funny)

allism (457899) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765823)

And then they can sue Al Gore, since he took the initiative in creating the Internet.

Hey, maybe this IS a good idea...

Re:hee hee (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765727)

Well since I use CAT-6 copper I should be OK.

ffxi (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765491)

The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club Announces acquisition of SCO The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club Announces acquisition of SCO
By Tim Copperfield
New York, NY - #FFXI (The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club) today announced acquisition of The SCO Group [yahoo.com] for $26.9 million in stock and $40 million in FFXI game credits.

#FFXI today announced it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire the intellectual property and technology assets of The SCO Group, a leading provider of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, based in Lindon, Utah. #FFXI's acquisition of SCO technology will help #FFXI sign up more members worldwide. In addition to developing new solutions, #FFXI will use SCO engineering expertise and technology to enhance the #FFXI member services.

"I'd love to see these #FFXI types slowly consumed by millions of swarming microbes and converted into harmless and useful biochemicals." said an anonymous slashdot poster, blinded by the #FFXI success in achieving first post on a popular geek news website, slashdot.org [slashdot.org] .

"This #FFXI shit is getting out of hand. Slashdot needs troll filters. Or better yet a crap flood mod that I can exclude from my browsing. Seriously, a good troll is art, what you dumb fucks are doing is just plain stupid." said spacecowboy420.

macewan, on linuxquestions [linuxquestions.org] said "Thanks for that link to the SCO quotes page. My guess is that they want to be bought out. Hrm, think they want #FFXI to buy them??"

After careful consideration and debate, #FFXI board of directors agreed to purchase 6,426,600 preferred shares and 113,102 common shares (the equivalent of 150,803 ADSs) of SCO, for an aggregate consideration of approximately US$26.9 million and approximately $40 million for FFXI fans that were working in Lindon, Utah offices of The SCO Group.

If all goes well, the final decision is to be expected shortly, followed by transfer of most SCO FFXI fans from their Lindon, UT offices to the #FFXI Headquarters in New York.

About #FFXI
#FFXI (The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club) is the first organization which
gathers FFXI fans from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being ANIME FAGGOTS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a INTO ANIMU [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a ALONE FOR LIFE [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then #FFXI (The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join #FFXI (The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time #FFXI member.
#FFXI (The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club) is the fastest-growing FFXI fan community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and Japan. You, too, can be a part of #FFXI if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of FINAL FANTASY 11 [squaresoft.com] and play it.

Second, you need to join the official #FFXI irc channel #FFXI on EFNet, and ask them "how do I summoned chocobot?" in a tautological fashion (repetition).

Third, you need to succeed in posting a #FFXI "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for gooks" website

Finally, talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #FFXI, the official The Official Final Fantasy 11 Fan Club irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.isprime.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the free CGI IRC client by clicking here [efnet.info] .

About SCO
The SCO Group [SCOX [yahoo.com] ] helps millions of FFXI fans in more than 82 countries around the world grow their penises everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a network of more than 11,000 animu resellers and 8,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable animu support and services to prospective members and customers.
SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX and UnixWare are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of their respective owners.

This news release contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. Actual results may vary materially from the expectations contained herein. The forward-looking statements contained herein include statements about the consummation of the transaction with SCO and benefits of the pending transaction with SCO. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described herein include the inability to obtain regulatory approvals and the inability to successfully integrate the SCO business. #FFXI is under no obligation to (and expressly disclaims any such obligation to) update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.


If you have mod points and would like to support #FFXI, please moderate this post up.

________________________________________________
_#_#__FFFf_FFFf__x___x__III_____________________
#####_F____F______X_x____I______________________
_#_#__Fff__Fff_____X_____I______________________
#####_F____F______x_X____I______________________
_#_#__F____F_____x___x__III_____________________
________________________________________________
____________Official_Final_Fantasy_11_Fan_Club__

First Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765498)

I did it!

Re:First Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765536)

cat /dev/you | ~/fail.it

There's a CNN story about this too (5, Informative)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765499)

Here's my submission of the story:

According to this CNN story [cnn.com] posted a few minutes back, a U.S. appeals court says that the RIAA's methods for tracking down those who copy its music over the Internet are not authorized by law. "The 1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit". Note that Verizon suffered setbacks earlier in it's case against the RIAA as reported here [slashdot.org]

Go Judiciary! Wooooo! (5, Interesting)

GaelenBurns (716462) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765634)

Our courts have been making some good decisions lately. The President is no longer allowed to hold US Citizens on US soil indefinately and without charges, the MA Courts ruled progressively on gay marriage, and now the RIAA is put in its place. Strike down the Patriot Act and the good old USA is almost back on track. Gotta love that glimmer of hope.

Have a reality check (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765787)

I knew /. was a hotbed for liberal whingers, but please tell me this.

What good does it do to us if a friggin' terrorist who has admitted being a part of the 9/11 is tried in a civilian court? Get real. We should just shoot these guys.

Gay marriage? Are you a fucking fag or something or why is this so important to you? I'm glad that my president has gone public saying that he'll veto all attempts to drag the sacrament of marriage (which by definition can only exist between a man and a woman) in mud.

Re:Have a reality check (1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765855)

This isn't an issue of being gay or not, it's an issue of giving everyone equal rights.

Why does it bother YOU if gay people can get married? It's not like they're trying to pass a law that says "straight people can no longer get married; only gays can." Rather, they are trying to give the same rights (mostly financial issues for couples) to gays that straight people currently have.

For the record, I'm straight. I do, however, have several gay friends and will support all types of equal rights legislation. Don't be a closed minded homophobic freak; get to know a gay person. Most of them are nice people.

Two comments: (5, Informative)

GnrlFajita (732246) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765500)

First, this is good news but not great. The RIAA can't get subpoenas under these circumstances, but the court did not rule that provision of the DMCA unconstitutional, so the door is not completely shut.

Second, before you ask, this only covers one federal circuit (& the smallest one at that), not the entire nation, but in intellectual property matters what the DC Circuit says usually goes.

You're thinking in 1975 terms. (5, Funny)

Exmet Paff Daxx (535601) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765636)

We have the Internet now, which is owned by AOL, which exists in Virginia. Which is under the D.C. Circuit Court. Which means that whatever they decide applies to an overwhelming majority of the Internet's core infrastructure.

You must have been thinking of the real world... which is weird, because this is Slashdot.

Re:Two comments: (5, Insightful)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765716)

Yeah, it's good (but not great). It still leaves in place the normal procedure to go after copyright violators, but puts a crack in DMCA. The RIAA should rejoice, they're far less likely to go after some granny or kid this way, making them look like complete jerks. (Now they'll just be incomplete ones.)

The not great part is definitely the scope of the court, but it's a darned good start. I wonder if the RIAA will try to take it to the Supremes?

I love the smell of Irony in the morning! (4, Interesting)

schon (31600) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765798)

the court did not rule that provision of the DMCA unconstitutional

No, but it did say (in effect) that the DMCA protects the ISPs, because the ISPs aren't hosting the files.

Imagine that! The DMCA, lobbied for by the RIAA is coming around to bite them in the ass!

Gotta love the irony!

Good News! but... (5, Insightful)

matt4077 (581118) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765505)

Does anybody know if the ISPs could now be liable if they release thei customers' data without their consent?

Re:Good News! but... (2, Informative)

JohnTheFisherman (225485) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765654)

This really has nothing to do with that - only that the ISP cannot be compelled to release the data, and that the DMCA does not apply to peer-to-peer file sharing.

Yeah, great news for the pirates (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765508)

Not to go against the typical slashdot grain, but how exactly is this a good thing? Should we withold the names of child molesters to protect their precious "privacy"?

Re:Yeah, great news for the pirates (5, Insightful)

e6003 (552415) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765604)

The point is, these subpoenas are issued with little specificty and the targets of them don't find out about them until their ISP informs them. If you are being accused of a crime, you should have the right to discover what the accusations are and to defend yourself. Apart from the rather trollish fact that you compare the copying of music with serious sexual interference with kids, a child molester would be formally charged with a crime before being commanded to appear in court. So he gets a chance to defend himself. The RIAA subpoenas didn't allow that luxury to the targets of them...

Re:Yeah, great news for the pirates (-1)

Sarojin (446404) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765618)

Yes. Some of those molesters could be open source contributors.

Verizon DSL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765516)

Now if my DSL stops acting like it was made by MS (slow, unreliable) for the past month, I'll be happy!

Huge setback (1)

HellHammer (704169) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765518)

Wow, the RIAA ISN'T invincible after all!

Great, but (5, Interesting)

QuackQuack (550293) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765520)

What happens to the people who have already been snagged and settled with the RIAA? Are they off the hook?

Separate cases (1, Informative)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765579)

This ruling pertains only to the Verizon case, although it has implications for other current cases. It doesn't apply to cases already settled, especially since they were settled out of court.

Re:Separate cases (1)

QuackQuack (550293) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765623)

Right, but they were initiated based on information from ISPs that the court now says ISPs aren't compelled to release.

Re:Separate cases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765710)

Yet the ISP's released the information without a fight (except for Verizon). If there were no law at all, RIAA could still ask the ISP for the names, and the ISP could still hand them over if they felt it were appropriate. For once I'm glad my ISP is Verizon.

Re:Separate cases (0)

Stingr (701739) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765751)

Yes but compelled is the magic word. If the above mentioned ISPs gave the names up willingly then I think that past rulings would stand.

This decision basically says that ISPs have the right to say no but that doesn't mean that they have to.

Re:Separate cases (1)

QuackQuack (550293) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765864)

They gave up the names because they didn't want a fight.

If given a choice on whether to give out customer names to the RIAA or not, I think ISPs will generally choose not to, they want to keep their customers after all.

Re:Separate cases (1)

ianc7 (694137) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765850)

So are these unfortunate wretches that were compelled to settle now free to seek compensation from their ISPs? I would hope that there would be some recourse there .

Re:Great, but (2, Informative)

GnrlFajita (732246) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765590)

Nope. They settled, so they lost all right to complain. Not only that, but the fact that they were "already snagged" means that this decision is meaningless as to them. This only covers subpoena-ing names from ISPs, not liability of downloaders.

Re:Great, but (1)

ERJ (600451) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765621)

I would say they are out a couple grand. They could have gone to court but decided to pay instead. Pretty much that money is gone.

There might be a case for a counter-suit though...

and in another ruling about file-sharing (-1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765521)

A Dutch court ruled today [yahoo.com] that Kazaa can't be blamed for what its users share.

A good day indeed for community access to information.

Access to information? Most traffic IS illegal (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765583)

Big deal. For instance, universities all over the globe are banning the use of any P2P in their network. Why? Because the material trafficed is mostly illegal. Which can only make sense.

Where I work, running P2P in our network is a cause for summary dismissal - it doesn't matter if you're a professor or a student. Zero tolerance.

Re:Access to information? Most traffic IS illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765848)

so I simply ssh tunnel my p2p app and bypass your lame-excuse for IT people.

Zero tolerance of idiots runningthe It infrastructure is my policy.

What's going on? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765523)

What's going on?

Suddenly the judicial system is fighting back against the GWB/neo-con administration. Padilla can't be held, serious concerns about prisoners in Gitmo and now this.

The one thing I would like to see now is the scrapping of the deal Microsoft did with the DoJ.

Re:What's going on? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765566)

What does GWB have to do with it? The DMCA was signed by you man Clinton.

Yeah, blame it all on Clinton - it's 4 years now (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765678)

The DMCA was signed by you man Clinton

After it was accepted by Republican controlled House and Senate.

The moron has been our moron-in-chief now for 4 years. It's about time you start taking responsibility for his bad, bad decisions. You can't blame it all on the previous administration.

I do, however, feel some sort of sympathy with all of you Clinton haters. I never realized before that you really could hate a president so much. Both as a person (religious bigot, weak, stupid) and as the institution (horrific, extremely dangerous foreign policy). After four years of GWB administration I'm beginning to understand the paranoia and hate with which certain people reacted to Clinton administration.

Re:Yeah, blame it all on Clinton - it's 4 years no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765777)

Who said I was defending the Republicans? The democrats/republicans are just different puppets pulled by the same strings.

Re:Yeah, blame it all on Clinton - it's 4 years no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765778)

He came in January 2001... it is now December 2003, explain your math, PLEASE.

Re:Yeah, blame it all on Clinton - it's 4 years no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765865)

Yeah, OK. A mistake.Time passes so slowly when you're waiting for the elections.

Elections that will decide whether we'll choose the neocon nightmare for yet another four years or if we'll finally wake up.

I work in Germany and one article in a local major newspaper got it right. It roughly translated as: "On 9/11 America plunged into a psychosis of a nation state". I can only hope we're finally coming back to sanity.

YAY! (1, Funny)

RedA$$edMonkey (688732) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765533)

Let the frenzied orgy of music downloads begin!

Re:YAY! (0)

Stingr (701739) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765795)

Only if you use Verizon's poor excuse for DSL.

So what does this mean (3, Interesting)

santos_douglas (633335) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765534)

for people who have already settled as a result of prior subpoenas?

Re:So what does this mean (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765593)

If you signed anything the RIAA told you to, you are still and forever screwed.

Re:So what does this mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765628)

It means that they lost their money

Go Judicial system! (2, Insightful)

HMA2000 (728266) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765550)

You have to hand it to the framers of the constitution.

It seems no matter how badly the executive branch and the legislative branch gum up the works with silly laws and larger than life egos the Judicial system keeps them in check.

Re:Go Judicial system! (1, Flamebait)

eigor40 (617582) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765671)

...except for the fact that a lot of those larger-than-life egos in the executive branch were put there by the judicial system in the first place.

Nobody bats a thousand.

Re:Go Judicial system! (1)

paitre (32242) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765679)

And you think the Judicial System doesn't have larger than life egos and people who would rather apply their politics to rulings, and -do-. See Roe v. Wade. Unless explicitly granted via the amendment process, the powers of federal government are limited to what is explicitly stated in the constitution...too much of the constitution has been effectivily nullified by pea-brained decisions made by the USSC...like the 9th and 10th amendments, for staters.

*fumes*

Re:Go Judicial system! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765757)

The judges are as fucked up as anything else. The framers were clever all right. But there's a reason were not governed by judges.

Our forefathers understood enough about people to understand the best way to set up the government was to make it like herding cats. They'll all avoid something obviously dangerous, they'll all head for something appearently benign and tasty, but other than that they'll each decide to go their own way, as often interferring with each other as not.

Some more info... (5, Informative)

Exmet Paff Daxx (535601) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765565)

Here's the full text of the ruling [uscourts.gov] .

Interestingly, this is the exact same appeals court that overturned the decision against Microsoft. It's good to know that there are cool, compassionate people in charge of the courts who don't listen to which way the prevailing "geek winds" are blowing on e issue or another but instead disspassionately apply the law. It appears that in their mind, the RIAA is as mistaken as Microsoft was innocent.

Re:Some more info... (5, Interesting)

antiMStroll (664213) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765760)

Microsoft was found to be innocent? I don't think so. The remedy was overturned, not the findings of the court.

yaaaaaay for common sense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765567)


Now if only the ISPs would countersue them... can they?

not quite (4, Informative)

capoccia (312092) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765570)

the RIAA can still subpoena your personal info. they just are prohibited from doing so without first formally filing a lawsuit against every john/jane doe they wish to sue.

Re:not quite (1)

vortexf5 (221744) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765674)

<I> the RIAA can still subpoena your personal info. they just are prohibited from doing so without first formally filing a lawsuit against every john/jane doe they wish to sue.</I>

And in the process they'd be filing lawsuits against a lot of innocent people, and that'd get them in LOTS of trouble, but IANAL, so what do I know?

Re:not quite (1)

Neophytus (642863) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765729)

Basically this has the same effect. Before, it cost only the amount of a canned Lawyer's letter to get the details. Now, they need to get some sort of actual case against the users together, along with the now giant lawyers bills to boot.

It's a Beautiful Day! (4, Insightful)

fname (199759) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765575)

Well, this is extremely good news. While I think that the file-sharing that occurs on networks such as Kazaa are largely copyright violations, I'm happy to see that the bar has been significantly raised for the RIAA to go after alleged violators.

This ruling will help re-establish anonymity on the internet, as users can worry much less about being identified by a vengeful 3rd party-- be it a record label cracking down on copytright violators, a corporation trying to stifle criticism or a politician trying to un-nerve his opposition. This is a beautiful ruling, and if it stands, its effect will reverberate fare part the file sharing arena.

Double Edged Sword (1, Interesting)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765576)

Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.

In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."


So Verizon didn't come through with shining colors, but at least the Rediculous Industry Assoc. of America to a hit too. At the very least it means a judge would have to issue a subpoena before any ISP would have to turn over records. And, from what little information is provided in the article, I would have to guess they're going to have a hard time since they tend to make arguements in court that border upon the silly.

Trial Judge != Appeals Judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765640)

Two different hearings, with different results. Verizon lost last time, and RIAA lost this time. Now, if it goes to the Supreme Court, we'll find out the real winner, otherwise it's Verizon.

Re:Double Edged Sword (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765653)

You misunderstand. That's the part of the trial judge's reasoning that got shot down on appeal.

He didn't get modded -1 specious, he got modded -1 off topic as the courts aren't part of the legislative branch. You'd hope, that as a judge, he'd understand that. I mean if you can't pass civics 101, should you really be adjudicating? I tend to go with a, "No" on that. But what do I know.

Re:Double Edged Sword (1)

MaxiCat_42 (711203) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765684)

Read the article - the second quote was from the trial that the appeal overturned.

Re:Double Edged Sword (2, Informative)

TWagers (657500) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765715)

So Verizon didn't come through with shining colors, but at least the Rediculous Industry Assoc. of America to a hit too.

Keep in mind that that was the trial judge that stated that, not the appelate judges. It was the trial judge's original ruling that was overruled on appeal.

Those Souless dogs of the RIAA.... (5, Insightful)

Coirnoir (682214) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765578)

"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." -RIAA Yep, thats it all right, we're PUSHING them to sue.... They dont really want to after all.. CoirNoir

Yay for Judicial Restraint! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765588)

Judges that know they're not there to make or expand law are the best.

Phew! (5, Funny)

asdfasdfasdfasdf (211581) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765592)

RIAA can't compel the ISP to provide the name of the downloaders

Excellent! Now I can breathe a sigh of relief, knowing my obsession with Clay Aiken will remain a secret.

Oops.

I hope it sexual.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765822)

it would deeply disturb me to think that there was someone out there who enjoyed his "singing."

Big win (0, Redundant)

lukior (727393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765595)

This is a huge win for networks and ISP's. According to the findings of the lawsuit Companies like Verizon are not responsible for what data travels over their network. This should also effect cases where ISP's were being sued for hosting certain types of websites. While it doesn't overturn the DMCA it is a giant step toward protecting free speach.

Phew (5, Funny)

SillySnake (727102) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765596)

I was getting tired of driving back home to "see the family" to use their high speed in their name instead of mine. What? Their old.. Less time to serve in prison..

Another story in the Detroit Free Press... (4, Informative)

MikeVx (627293) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765598)

I submitted this, [freep.com] but not soon enough.

Well, it's about time. (4, Insightful)

ActionPlant (721843) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765603)

It's always been silly, and it's just now dawning on the judges?

This is great news. Incentive, really. Yes, the lawsuit was against Verizon, but I see no reason why other companies (and individuals) shouldn't stand up and challenge a lot of what has been going on. It's not necessarily that our judicial system has been in agreement with the RIAA, it's just that people have had no precedence working for them in a courtside challenge. The question now is, which do we take on: the RIAA, or the DMCA itself?

Damon,

Good Thing, But... (5, Insightful)

tds67 (670584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765605)

...the real problem is Congress. I think the RIAA will just go back to their Congressional, Sonny Bono-style minions on Capitol Hill to get this "fixed", and we will have another silly DMCA II law that covers this situation.

Not a troll but (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765615)

This does mean that downloading music off the net is not theft.

It's about time (5, Insightful)

felonious (636719) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765630)

Now if we can keep the entertainment industry(s) from now trying to rewrite the laws and make it legal to supoena without judicial oversight well be set. Yes it would mean they'd move to more overtly sinister means but if so they'd be screwing themselves.

Let us rejoice in this one small/big victory for regular people. You know as big as these lawsuits were supposed to be there's been little if any in the news about them. I think it's more of a campaign of disinformation than anything and some people are weak enough to buy it but most aren't ignorant to what's going on.

Ponder this...how long until we get pulled over by the police for speeding or something else along those lines and they search our vehicles for mps's burned on cdr's? I can just see being in the "bighouse" with a bunch of murderers and rapists and then they ask me what I did. Oh I just burned some Britney Spears song to a cd. What's that Bubba? Do I have to drop 'em and grab my ankles?

Our future police state sounds so much fun!

Re:It's about time (1)

Skater (41976) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765723)

I'm going to quote an old /. post that I don't have a link to:

"Can I play on that slippery slope when you're done with it?"

--RJ

Re:It's about time (2, Funny)

Samrobb (12731) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765726)

I can just see being in the "bighouse" with a bunch of murderers and rapists and then they ask me what I did.

This just screams out for a reference to Alice's DMCA [sethf.com] ...

...there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there. Viagra spammers. Credit-card crackers. Relay-rapers! Relay-rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me!

Re:It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765804)

There are no rapist and murderers in US prisons. There is no room for them, after all the space was taken up by pot smokers. This would be funnier if I didn't personally know a murderer who will be released before another person I know who was arrested for posession.

Re:It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765856)

"You know as big as these lawsuits were supposed to be there's been little if any in the news about them."

This has been all over CBS new radio this morning

Be prepared (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765631)

The RIAA will lobby for a new law that allows them to get these records. (As the court wisely notes Congress did not contemplate P2P in 1998) If there was a time to mobilize an effective campaign against such a law, now is the time to do it.

Hopefully if things go right... (4, Insightful)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765632)

Then DMCA nonsense can be brought to light and this case quoted everytime this stuff comes up.

On the other hand, I run a mailing list for travel agents and although collusion among travel agents is illegal (against the Sherman Antitrust Act) I have the list protected via the DMCA. If a vendor gets his hands on a private email from the mailing list, then it's a violation of DMCA just by possessing it.

Maybe we need to start thinking about ways of using the DMCA to protect ourselves. It's not just for big corporations.

Re:Hopefully if things go right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765744)

"If a vendor gets his hands on a private email from the mailing list, then it's a violation of DMCA just by possessing it. "

Maybe. But that won't make the evidence inadmissible in your antitrust case. Your civil copyright case against the vendor won't have any bearing in the state's antitrust case against you. They are entirely separate. The DMCA might "protect" your documents, but they don't give you such a loophole for committing a federal crime. The judge is not going to suppress evidence on the basis of it being copyrighted.

IANAL need help (4, Insightful)

musikit (716987) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765675)

Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.

Ok so verizon is arguing that it isn't responsible for what data the users of their service send? that they should only be responsible for data on their servers?

this makes perfect sense to me if i'm reading this right. data is data how is verizon suppose to know what the data is other then the fact that it run on port X and port X is known to be the default port for kazaa.


In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation "makes little sense from a policy standpoint," and warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."


if i was correct before why would this seem silly to the judge? loophole? how is it a loophole? does the USPS scan every mail going through it's buildings for copies of music? it seems to me that kazaa was just speeding up the process.

Ok other then the fact that most ISP block port 80 and 21 (among other ports) why doesn't these P2P services just use a well known port to transfer files? then in order to shutdown P2P they would have to shutdown the WWW. if i download a song off a computer of port 80 how would verizon/any ISP know it was a copyrighted song?

Re:IANAL need help (1)

keester (646050) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765794)

why doesn't these P2P services just use a well known port to transfer files?

Sounds great, other then the fact that most ISP block port 80 and 21 (among other ports).

Re:IANAL need help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765801)

Protocol blocking, most Cisco equipment can do it.

Why is it (-1)

Sarojin (446404) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765680)

that every post against this ruling is modded down, and every post for it is modded up? When did Slashdot become so partisan?

Something a lot of you are missing... (5, Insightful)

jamonterrell (517500) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765693)

The court did not decide on the constitutionality of obtaining the subpeanas, they simply agreed with Verizons argument that the RIAA did not have the right to obtain them in this particular case. While this does serve as excellent case law for future arguments, it does NOT stop the RIAA from continueing to subpeana other ISPs for information.

A good week for justice (2, Interesting)

indros13 (531405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765699)

Hooray for the courts! In addition to making the RIAA follow the law in getting subpoenas, the courts are finally taking a stand on the unjust inprisonment of "enemy combatants," requiring that our government treat its citizens to their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Next up, SCO goes down in flames and Microsoft will finally get caught by an anti-trust [nytimes.com] lawsuit. Merry Christmas!

stuff that matters replaced buy phonIE ?pr? ?firm? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765711)

hypenosys/corepirate nazi payper liesense stock markup fraud eyecons?

or, does just appear that way?

If anyone wants an MP3 of the ruling... (5, Funny)

Snarfangel (203258) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765736)

let me know.

Re:If anyone wants an MP3 of the ruling... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765816)

Sure thing!! What's your KaZaa user name?

Verizon, hmmm... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765748)

Since they recently got DSL working in my area now I'm even more seriously considering switching.

I wonder how Cox would handle a case like this.

Read the opinion! (1, Redundant)

MultisSanguinisFluit (608373) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765758)

Here it is. [uscourts.gov] The appeals court noted that the drafters of the DMCA didn't forseee P2P technology... otherwise, the outcome may have been different.

Well its bout time (1)

Cranst0n (617823) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765763)

That someone with some balls ruled for the common man's privacy. Of course no the RIAA will probably team up with SCO to make everything they do Leagle and important. Wait a sec.. maybe thats the real backer of the SCO lawsuit.. the RIAA. Just a blip in the mind

You've missed the most important part: (4, Insightful)

Don'tTreadOnMe (686201) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765785)

In his ruling, the trial judge...warned that it "would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet."

This means that the RIAA and others will just lobby Congress, and a law that they can use will be passed.

We're still screwed, privacy-wise, because this development will be temporary.

Its actually sad (1)

JohnnyComeLately (725958) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765786)

It's sad that they've locked themselves into this closet of self-defeating behavior


It smacks upon the ineptness of SCO's management to realize that litigation as a primary means of justifying revenue is a dark room with no way out. Now even Walmart and others have figured out profitable methods of music distribution. It's sad that a retailer embraced it before an agency representing CREATIVE ARTISTS (sorry for yelling). Yes, the Record Labels have been working on their own version, but IMHO they've spent so much time trying to lock it down they got left behind.


I'm surprised there aren't anti-trust lawsuits against the record lables for supressing innovation and forcing flawed products upon us (at artifically inflated prices). Hmmmm...DVD 19$, CD soundtrack $16.....


John
"Don't tell me this is the most distubing post you've seen on /."

I Nominate Cary Sherman... (5, Funny)

GTRacer (234395) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765796)

...for the "Best Spin" of 2003 Award!!!

Cary Sherman, president of the recording industry group, said the ruling "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."

"Offer the opportunity to settle"...Kinda like offering an olive branch made of pointy steel leaves and covered with anthrax. Now that's a classic worth framing!

GTRacer
127.0.0.1

Court == Double Edged Sword? (0, Redundant)

Peeet (730301) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765810)

From the freep.com [freep.com] article:
"Verizon had argued at its trial that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to such subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a Web site, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer.

In his ruling, the trial judge wrote that Verizon's interpretation ``makes little sense from a policy standpoint,'' and warned that it ``would create a huge loophole in Congress' effort to prevent copyright infringement on the Internet.''
"


So the judges also told Verizon that part of their arguement was laughable as well.

X steps forward, Y steps back, you fill in the two variables, what do you think?

I think this ruling is like 3 steps forward, 1 step back.

I told you there is no point in paying for music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7765829)

There is nothing RIAA can do about, they are screwed!

Old subpoenaed info now inadmissable? (2, Insightful)

MunchMunch (670504) | more than 10 years ago | (#7765853)

That's my main question. If intuition serves, then those subpoenas would be wrongfully obtained and a case couldn't proceed based on them. Naturally, the RIAA still has the option they've always had, namely that of filing a lawsuit to lawfully obtain personal info. For the 200-odd people who are now facing the RIAA 'dentists' (heh), it seems like these cases will be thrown out purely on procedural grounds.

Naturally, if this ruling stands, I see no other possible result than to either force the RIAA to do just that--file lawsuits before recieving personal info--, or to stop shaking down end users through threats of multi-million dollar lawsuits.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?