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!

Supreme Court Rejects RIAA Appeal

timothy posted about 10 years ago | from the sounds-like-a-smart-one dept.

Music 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!"

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

yay! (5, Funny)

delta_avi_delta (813412) | about 10 years ago | (#10504557)

And the Lord saw that it was good, and said, "w00t!"

Re:yay! (1)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | about 10 years ago | (#10504586)

stop reading my mind. . . atgrhrhr...get out of my head.
  • see post below, posted at exactly the same time

Re:yay! (1)

hackwrench (573697) | about 10 years ago | (#10504868)

Based on your nickname you must have a nasty habit of that happening to you.

ATTENTION DEMOCRATS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504652)

Vote in Ohio!

ATTENTION DEMOCRATS! No matter where you live, you can register to vote absentee in Ohio [wood.oh.us] ! The Wood County Board of Elections doesn't ask for proof of residency. REGISTER NOW and VOTE KERRY!

Vote in Ohio!

Re:ATTENTION DEMOCRATS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504741)

No matter where you live, you can register to vote absentee in Ohio...REGISTER NOW and VOTE KERRY

In return will Kerry get me out of jail for doing so?

Re:ATTENTION DEMOCRATS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504829)

Thanks for the tip, I'll vote absentee for Bush. :P

Premature? (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 years ago | (#10504698)

SCOTUS has declined to hear the case, effectively casting the Verizon opinion in stone. Wahoo! Part of DMCA shot down!"

Or is this simply until the RIAA frames their arguments differently. Those of us old enough and who read some history books in school remember the SCOTUS sometimes reversing decisions or simply throwing it back in the plaintiffs face and saying, "You didn't cross all your T's and dot all your I's, we'll be here if you'd like to have another go later on." The ball is merely in the RIAA's court while they choose another tack.

For now, it's certainly good stuff, but be wary.

w00t! (0, Redundant)

fore1337 (573128) | about 10 years ago | (#10504723)

exactly what I was thinking.

I couldn't have w00ted better myself.

Re:yay! And, the DCMA said: (1)

davidsyes (765062) | about 10 years ago | (#10504831)

"TODAY.. is a GOOD day to die!"

C'mon, more b'atleth to the DCMA. And, hit'em with a few pain sticks, too.

I think this decribes it best (2, Funny)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | about 10 years ago | (#10504558)

w00t!

Thank goodness, they chose not to stifle innovation, because the RIAA thinks their product desreves more money.

Re:I think this decribes it best (3, Insightful)

chrome (3506) | about 10 years ago | (#10504585)

Oh, cool, now I can go back to stealing music for stuffing into my iPod. :/

Re:I think this decribes it best (5, Insightful)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | about 10 years ago | (#10504637)

Sure, If you like. But that's your crime, not the crime of a company that makes a piece of software. Otherwise, we would have to shut down everything that makes copyright infringement *(Not Stealing)* easy. Like CD burners, Broadband, DVD burners, Ripper Software, VCR's, ad infinitum.

Unless of course, you were just joking.

Re:I think this decribes it best (5, Insightful)

'nother poster (700681) | about 10 years ago | (#10504710)

Not as far as I can see. All this says, is that if the RIAA wishes to subpoena the personal information of an ISPs customer, they must actually file a lawsuit to have a basis for access to this data, rather than simply demanding the data.

If you were "stealing" misic for stuffing into your iPod, the RIAA can file a John Doe lawsuit, subpoena your personal data from your ISP, correct the personal data in the lawsuit to reflect this, and sue you, or settle, as they see fit.

Rethink post. (2, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | about 10 years ago | (#10504792)

This doesn't make sense. Yes, they feel their product deserves more money, buy hey, it's their product, they can charge what they want. That's different than DRM, "fair use" issues, the main issue, do they have the right to issue supoenas [sic] this way? Two (or three) different issues, because while the Supreme Court non-ruling puts a small kink in RIAA world domination plans, it will NOT stop the lawsuits (unfortunately).

Good (5, Insightful)

mfh (56) | about 10 years ago | (#10504559)

The courts are finally catching on to the RIAA's game. People should start suing *them*.

Yeah... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504560)

...but didn't the court also vow *not* to rule on the 10 Commandments case that is going to trial this month?

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504564)

FP

Whew, for awhile there (4, Funny)

grunt107 (739510) | about 10 years ago | (#10504566)

All the 'Nothing to see' messages had me thinking the RIAA had DMCA'd /.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court is at least knocking down the RIAA. Maybe now they'll realize litigating teenagers is actually a money-losing endeavor.

Re:Whew, for awhile there (4, Insightful)

Eberlin (570874) | about 10 years ago | (#10504713)

Never underestimate the power of fear. I'm not saying that it's good, but it has definitely been effective. The recording industry's relentless barrage of lawsuits (and settlements) have deterred a significant number of people from "stealing" music.

Will it end piracy? Of course not. Are those p2p networks helping with album sales for obscure artists? Probably. Will it drive down the sales of the next pop artist's album? That's debatable. The thing is the RIAA is seeing less money and it's scared. In turn, they had to react the best way they knew how. "Trade songs online and we'll sue you."

As scummy as we think they are, they'll find a way to exist. It's just unfortunate that the first reaction to adversity is to strike fear amongst the population.

reasoning behind rejecting the appeal (5, Funny)

SKPhoton (683703) | about 10 years ago | (#10504568)

Perhaps, like all of us, the judges are getting tired of the RIAA's "tactics" and want it to shut up and stop whining.

Re:reasoning behind rejecting the appeal (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 years ago | (#10504735)

Perhaps, like all of us, the judges are getting tired of the RIAA's "tactics" and want it to shut up and stop whining.

They can't hear any whining, they've got their MP3 players cranked up. Rumerhazzit Clarence Thomas listens to Dick Cheney singing.

Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John Doe (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | about 10 years ago | (#10504571)

Just read the summary again and you'll see this isn't that major of a victory for P2P fans... all the RIAA has to do is file a "John Doe" lawsuit, and then Verizon will have to turn over the info so that the user is identified and dropped into the defendant's chair.

Sorry, this doesn't make P2P copyrighted music stealing legal...

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504622)

Vote in Ohio!

ATTENTION DEMOCRATS! No matter where you live, you can register to vote absentee in Ohio [wood.oh.us] ! The Wood County Board of Elections doesn't ask for proof of residency. REGISTER NOW and VOTE KERRY!

Vote in Ohio!

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504725)

Nice troll, assmaster.

Yes, they DO ask for proof of residency. And the deadline for registration was last week.

And even if they didn't, what you're proposing is electoral fraud. I want Kerry to win, no question, but not by electoral shenanigans.

We got Bush that way, remember?

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (3, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about 10 years ago | (#10504634)

Sorry, this doesn't make P2P copyrighted music stealing legal...

Nor does it make trading music files online "stealing" no matter how much they want the world to believe that it is.

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (0)

DAldredge (2353) | about 10 years ago | (#10504760)

Yes, it is. What is being done meets the legal defination of stealing and that is all that matter in the court room.

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (4, Informative)

garcia (6573) | about 10 years ago | (#10504801)

What is being done meets the legal defination of stealing and that is all that matter in the court room.

Hmm, I was always under the assumption that the legal definition of stealing was:

The basic legal definition of theft is 'the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it'.

But I guess legal dictionaries and my own recollection are wrong. If you are trading music online you aren't depriving the owner of anything unless he can no longer sell the product.

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (1)

julesh (229690) | about 10 years ago | (#10504857)

I'm sure you two have been around here for long enough to have this argument a thousand times over. Stop already. We're bored of it. ;)

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504821)

Um, no it doesn't.

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (4, Insightful)

mreed911 (794582) | about 10 years ago | (#10504775)

Riiight... I don't sign a EULA or any such agreement when I purchase the CD, but that only means that I own the physical CD - not the copyright to the content that's ON the CD. Current copyright laws (other than DMCA) prevent me from selling COPIES of that CD, but I'm free to resell that CD to whomever wants to buy it.

Thus, re-distributing the physical CD that you purchased as your property would be legal (though you would no longer own the right to digital reproductions you might have made as you no longer "own" the content), but re-distributing the protected works contained therein remains illegal.

Not that that was the point of *this* case...

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (5, Informative)

feloneous cat (564318) | about 10 years ago | (#10504803)

Nor does it make trading music files online "stealing" no matter how much they want the world to believe that it is.

No, that is not what this sez. Not even vaguely. It is about whether you can go on a fishing expedition to find someone who MIGHT be stealing vs. KNOWING that someone is stealing. Altogether different.

But, hey, what do I know. IANAL.

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (5, Insightful)

julesh (229690) | about 10 years ago | (#10504656)

Of course not. It _is_ however, a victory for those of us who believed that the RIAA's approach to the entire affair shouldn't be allowed. Essentially, a subpoena is a court document used to extract information. There should be judicial oversight to ensure that that process is not being abused. That's what this is about.

Only one, more to come? (1)

mefus (34481) | about 10 years ago | (#10504679)

This is only one of the cases the **IA submitted [com.com] for review by the SCOTUS.

I'm still on the edge of my seat.

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (4, Insightful)

gorbachev (512743) | about 10 years ago | (#10504682)

At least it forces the RIAA Stormtroopers to follow due process. It's also going to cost them more than using mail merge to send out the DMCA notices.

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (5, Informative)

retto (668183) | about 10 years ago | (#10504683)

this isn't that major of a victory for P2P fans

However it is a major victory for due process. No corporation should be allowed to issue their own 'supoenas' to force a third-party to turn over personal information without proper judicial oversight. That part of the DMCA was WAY over the line.

Re:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (3, Interesting)

qbzzt (11136) | about 10 years ago | (#10504773)

all the RIAA has to do is file a "John Doe" lawsuit

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:Next stop: Thousands of lawsuits against John D (4, Interesting)

0x0d0a (568518) | about 10 years ago | (#10504818)

Just read the summary again and you'll see this isn't that major of a victory for P2P fans... all the RIAA has to do is file a "John Doe" lawsuit, and then Verizon will have to turn over the info so that the user is identified and dropped into the defendant's chair.

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.

great! (1, Flamebait)

reptilezero (629076) | about 10 years ago | (#10504576)

great :) now all people have to do is STOP STEALING MUSIC. it's not that hard, and there's plenty of alternatives now. no excuses left to download music illegally.

Re:great! (0, Offtopic)

chocotof (691813) | about 10 years ago | (#10504621)

correct, go the the public library, lend out the CD and copy it. Perfectly OK since your library has paid all royalties and hence you are entitled to listen to the music.

Re:great! (2, Informative)

One Childish N00b (780549) | about 10 years ago | (#10504807)

You're allowed to listen to it, but not to copy it. Even the laws saying you can back up CDs you own only allow the owner of the CD to make and own backup copies, not anyone who borrows it.

It's a nice thought, though - just a shame it doesn't hold water.

Re:great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504636)

What about the excuse: I'm not some filthy rich guy and don't really care if i'm violating some copyrights or laws, 'cause they don't really enforce them anyway in my country?

Re:great! (0, Troll)

sleepnmojo (658421) | about 10 years ago | (#10504644)

I'll stop "stealing" when it is free.

Re:great! (1)

erick99 (743982) | about 10 years ago | (#10504790)

How about you work for free? If it turns out ok for you then maybe the musicians can learn from you how to make a living without getting paid.

Re:great! (2, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | about 10 years ago | (#10504647)

Ever heard the term "civil disobedience"? It's where you do something illegal (not immoral) for the right reasons, because the law is wrong.
They want to try legally protect an outmoded business practice, and create an artificial scarcity. Kinda like DeBeers. Both are wrong. The more of this that happens, the better.

Re:great! (2, Insightful)

reptilezero (629076) | about 10 years ago | (#10504691)

i'm not saying what the riaa is doing is right, but if you're downloading music you're taking a product for free that you can also buy in the stores. if i have a cd out in stores, but everyone just downloads the music for free, how am i supposed to support myself in order to continue creating music?

Re:great! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504798)

Porn?

I'd make porn.

Re:great! (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about 10 years ago | (#10504708)

They want to try legally protect an outmoded business practice, and create an artificial scarcity.

Now see, I know what you meant to say but you didn't say it correctly. What difference does it make that it is an "outmoded business practice"? So what? What matters is that they are a monopoly and have the power to keep people buying their music at artifically inflated prices.

The more people trade music online the more draconian laws will be presented to those that have the power to make them. The more music we continue to buy from the monopolies the more money they will have to sue us, fill the pockets of the law makers, and continue to bombard us with crap fed through the filters of consolidated media outlets.

That's why we should ignore their shit and tell everyone we know to do the same. THAT will hopefully dampen their reign. Not trading their music and giving them more legal fodder.

Re:great! (3, Insightful)

SunPin (596554) | about 10 years ago | (#10504771)

Civil disobedience? You spit on everyone that has risked life and limb for actual social problems. The music industry's tactics don't qualify or even logically lead to taking their music as civil disobedience.

Stealing food because the government only gives food to certain groups is a valid trigger for civil disobedience. Stealing music is stupid.

If you want the music industry's garbage, give them their asking price. If you suspect illegal cartel behavior, file a lawsuit. Stealing is not an option.

Re:great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504793)

It's where you do something illegal (not immoral)

And who decides what is or isn't immoral? Do you mean a Judeo-Christian idea of morality, a Humanist viewpoint, a Satanist model?

Chess_the_cat. Banned. Again.

Re:great! (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 10 years ago | (#10504819)

"Civil Disobediance" in this case would be not copying, listening to, supporting or buying the music in question.

Now if they said that only certain people could have the music for free then you'd have a point, but they don't want *anyone* to have it for free. You aren't taking anything away from them by possessing the music (without buying it) therefore you aren't doing anything to 'hurt' them. Which is usually the argument for why sharing music should be ok, "It doesn't hurt them".

Now it's the argument for disobeying the law? To hurt them?


Re:great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504832)

Those who practice civil disobediance have always had the courage to face the consequences of their actions. This is what gave them moral standing. I have yet to see an illegal downloader say, "Yep, I did it and this is why I did it." The only arguement illegal downloaders have is that "It isn't stealing!"

Re:great! (2, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 10 years ago | (#10504853)

"Ever heard the term 'civil disobedience'? "

Civil disobedience is when you commit the crime and then except the punishment in the hopes that it will seem unjust to those watching. It is not committing the crime and then hiding. If you want to perform civil disobedience, download a bunch of illegal MP3s and then turn yourself in. Don't plea-bargain, get your day in court and use it to explain your position of how you think that people should work for free (or what ever twisted logic you use to justify taking the works of others without their permission).

Re:great! (1)

inkdesign (7389) | about 10 years ago | (#10504694)

Yeah.. When an artist gets more than 10% of the purchase price at iTunes and the like, we'll talk about "plenty of alternatives."

Gee, is that 'all' we have to do? (4, Insightful)

Chordonblue (585047) | about 10 years ago | (#10504728)

"...all people have to do is STOP STEALING MUSIC. it's not that hard, and there's plenty of alternatives now. no excuses left to download music illegally."

A large quantity of incompatible DRM technologies that don't work well together is hardly an 'alternative'. Buying music encoded at 128 Mbits instead of something less lossy is again, not optimal.

The RIAA/MPAA will need to embrace the promise of PtoP or continue to suffer it's wrath. And before you get on the high horse of morality, let's examine the types of 'music' being sold to kids both visually (MTV - when they show 'music'), and audibly; then note it's impact.

When the recording industry glorifies and promotes criminal activity, sex and violence, why shouldn't the kids follow that simple example? They can be gang-bangers and that's 'ok', but heaven help them if they download a song? Something's very wrong here...

Re:Gee, is that 'all' we have to do? (1)

reptilezero (629076) | about 10 years ago | (#10504813)

the music that i buy isn't put out by the riaa (all independant stuff), so i don't have any problems with drm. in the end it's all about the money. i'm glad they lost the appeal, but i'm afraid people will see this as a go ahead to pirate whatever they want...music, movies, programs, etc...

Re:great! (1)

atezun (755568) | about 10 years ago | (#10504759)

That is if downloading music is actually considered illegal. Because currently in certain countries, ie: Canada, downloading music is currently legal.

Re:great! (2, Insightful)

Rikus (765448) | about 10 years ago | (#10504874)

Every time the word "steal" in this context, it is demonstrated that the speaker is ignorantly trying to apply the definition of a crime in which a possession is taken from its rightful owner against his/her will to a completely different crime, based on artificial restrictions that at least some people believe to be unjust.

SCOTUS being... (5, Informative)

embeejay (446541) | about 10 years ago | (#10504589)

The Supreme Court of USA for those of you who (like me) didn't have a clue at first.

Re:SCOTUS being... (3, Funny)

soulsteal (104635) | about 10 years ago | (#10504689)

Please note that SCOTUS is nothing like scrotum, except when they make decisions that we don't like.

Re:SCOTUS being... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504730)

Wouldn't that be SCOTUSA?

Re:SCOTUS being... (5, Interesting)

the_demiurge (26115) | about 10 years ago | (#10504782)

I wish people would stop using acronyms like SCOTUS for US Supreme Court and POTUS for US President. It's not that they're extremely long or extremely difficult to figure out, they're just extremely ugly.

Re:SCOTUS being... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504878)

If I had points I would mod you up.

more reasons to love the supreme court (2, Interesting)

spacerodent (790183) | about 10 years ago | (#10504591)

its always refreshing to see judges making decisions based off law and not political interests

Re:more reasons to love the supreme court (1)

HBI (604924) | about 10 years ago | (#10504674)

Refusing cert just means that they couldn't get five justices to be interested in taking the case.

There might have been three for all we know - or none.

Re:more reasons to love the supreme court (1)

thenextpresident (559469) | about 10 years ago | (#10504862)

That's the whole point of the supreme court. They are appointed to the position for life, so they don't have to worry about being reelected and have to play up to special interest groups.

Shot down? (5, Interesting)

zombiestomper (228123) | about 10 years ago | (#10504601)

I don't think so.

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?

Re:Shot down? (3, Informative)

atommoore (720369) | about 10 years ago | (#10504669)

It does mean that the circuit will continue to rule that way. Also, it means that other circuits, when faced with this issue, may find this case persuasive authority. Eventually there may be a circuit split, and the Supreme Court may choose to step in to resolve the disagreement. But for now, it is a victory within about 10% of the federal court system.

Re:Shot down? (1)

nullforce (743444) | about 10 years ago | (#10504731)

The Supreme Court does not have to make a ruling on a case. It has a limited scope of cases it can see, usually those dealing with Constitutional matters, and usually only sees other cases via certiorari. In this case, it has decided not to hear the case, which it can do. There is no guarantee that a case will be heard in the Supreme Court, and most cases are decided upon by the lower courts.

Re:Shot down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504863)

While you are correct that the SC does not guarantee that they will see a case, they do have jurisdiction over all actions brought in the US and is not limited in the scope of what cases can be brought to them. They sit at the top of both the states' and federal systems.

Not final yet. (5, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 10 years ago | (#10504602)

This isn't final unless/until all the remaining appellate districts rule in the same way. One district going the other way might bring it back to the supremes.

If they'd heard it and decided against the RIAA, rather than just refusing to hear it, it would be final.

Re:Not final yet. (2, Informative)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | about 10 years ago | (#10504870)

This isn't final unless/until all the remaining appellate districts rule in the same way. One district going the other way might bring it back to the supremes.

If they'd heard it and decided against the RIAA, rather than just refusing to hear it, it would be final.


Judges have a sort of gentlemens' agreement to honor each other's rulings. They don't have to. Another judge could certainly rule differently in a separate, yet related case. But as soon as one of the cases comes up, the lawyer should say, "look at this related case, where the last judge decided we were right." And generally, the judge will see that there is legal precident, and barring any major differences, rule the same way. This is necessary for consistancy, and many judges will uphold precident, even if they may have decided contrarily to the old judgement. Now that the Supreme Court has refused the case, the precident has been set.

Look at the ratio ;) (3, Funny)

BobSutan (467781) | about 10 years ago | (#10504605)

Chalk one up for the good guys. Good guys: 3 Bad greedy companies: 10,003

Re:Look at the ratio ;) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504718)

Money GOOD! Napster BAD! Sorry, but your comment brought back the image on the Lars flash animation. Man those were funny.

If it was soccer... (1)

glimmernull (815949) | about 10 years ago | (#10504606)

GOOOOOOAAAALLLLLLL! I think this just became the highlight of my day. Seriously, im glad the wanting-to-rule-the-world corporations finally got a nice kick after totally abusing their size.

Almost there... (4, Interesting)

TheUnFounded (731123) | about 10 years ago | (#10504611)

Now if the RIAA is disallowed from using "John Doe" litigation, we can finally be (at least somewhat) proud of the justice system!

Re:Almost there... (1)

zx75 (304335) | about 10 years ago | (#10504796)

No, removing the power to use John Doe legislation from a group would be a miscarriage of justice. That would prevent them from ever bringing a lawsuit against a person whom they did not know the exact identity. What would bring pride is a ruling against the complaints of the RIAA that they are sending these legal notices out for.

Re: Not even close (1)

Blitzenn (554788) | about 10 years ago | (#10504800)

The decision forces RIAA to use the John Doe litigation method. All this action stops is RIAA from bypassing the court system when trying to force ISPs to turn over use account information. RIAA now has to file a John Doe supeona and the case as to whether it is justifiable to turn over the information is then heard in a court case. It is not automatic as RIAA suggested (more like demanded).

Shot down? (5, Insightful)

crankyspice (63953) | about 10 years ago | (#10504618)

Wahoo! Part of DMCA shot down!

Not really. What the RIAA was doing was never really in the DMCA, a fact noted by the D.C. Circuit when they overturned the District Court's decision on a pure statutory analysis. This leaves us where we started, minus only a dubious construction atop the DMCA, an RIAA gamble that didn't pan out.

"Wahoo! Part of DMCA shot down!" (4, Funny)

demonbug (309515) | about 10 years ago | (#10504639)

I find your lack of respect disturbing, slashdotter... or should I say John Doe #1!?!

What is wrong with this world? (1)

Deorus (811828) | about 10 years ago | (#10504875)

> I find your lack of respect disturbing, slashdotter... or should I say John Doe #1!?!

If I was an artist (which I happen to not be) I would be pleased if my music was widespreading all over the world and shared over the net, not feeling disrespected. If someone feels disrespected for the sharing effect, then something is wrong with that person/people.

This is, in my opinion, a step forward in the fight against the neofeudalist threat.

Misread summary (5, Funny)

crawdaddy (344241) | about 10 years ago | (#10504640)

I thought it said SCROTUS at first! I wonder if they have any ties to the terrorist organization known as the CLIT.

Re:Misread summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504739)

Or the animal activist group Liberating Apes Before Imprisoning Apes. :)

Re:Misread summary (3, Funny)

Enrico Pulatzo (536675) | about 10 years ago | (#10504814)

not as often as they'd like...

It's a sad day... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504646)

...when activist judges use their positions to legislate from the bench and shoot down part of such a patriotic law like the DMCA.

Before we all rush to celebrate (2, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 10 years ago | (#10504658)

Remember that their reaction to this will be to screech about how it demonstrates that need even more laws to protect the level of profits that they demand. In the mid term, it may just be a case of them needing to bribe^H^H^H^H^H donate more in order to purchase DMCA v2.0 that gets around these pesky 'due process' loopholes.

DMCA borders on Unconstitutionality (4, Interesting)

L3on (610722) | about 10 years ago | (#10504660)

The Digital Millenium Copywrite act can be viewed as unconstitutional. I'm glad the supreme court is finally taking the correct steps to defend the individual's liberties in this country instead of the usual practice of protecting large firms profits (merly because those firms have too much say in our government because of the money they put into it). Hopefully this will bring an end to frivilous lawsuits against people that are mere pawns in the scheme of warez and piracy. Personally, I would rather see the RIAA spend some of thier resources in ensuring better music is being produced instead of the formulized crap they are turning out currently.

Re:DMCA borders on Unconstitutionality (1)

tiocsti (160794) | about 10 years ago | (#10504783)

Chosing to not hear a case is hardly taking steps to defend individual liberties.

>>
The Digital Millenium Copywrite act can be viewed as unconstitutional. I'm glad the supreme court is finally taking the correct steps to defend the individual's liberties in this country instead of the usual practice of protecting large firms profits (merly because those firms have too much say in our government because of the money they put into it). Hopefully this will bring an end to frivilous lawsuits against people that are mere pawns in the scheme of warez and piracy. Personally, I would rather see the RIAA spend some of thier resources in ensuring better music is being produced instead of the formulized crap they are turning out currently.

Re:DMCA borders on Unconstitutionality (1)

ravenspear (756059) | about 10 years ago | (#10504822)

I'm glad the supreme court is finally taking the correct steps to defend the individual's liberties in this country

The court did not "take any steps" to that effect. It simply denied the appeal. That means it prefers not to render an opinion on either side. The sentiment you are expressing is more applicable to the lower court that made the ruling.

Hopefully this will bring an end to frivilous lawsuits against people that are mere pawns in the scheme of warez and piracy.

Don't count on it. If anything this will probably increase them. Now that the RIAA's hopes of outlawing P2P software seem to be vanishing, mass lawsuits are the only legal mechanism they currently have to continue their crusade.

I don't understand fully... (4, Insightful)

Tyfud (777617) | about 10 years ago | (#10504667)

What does this mean for current lawsuits, and why does having john doe lawsuits make it better than if they knew your name? Who's fielding those lawsuits?

human rights (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 10 years ago | (#10504716)

America is now amassing a body of case law that protects our rights from attacks like the DMCA, and its INDUCEments to tyranny. But the pattern shows so far only that Verizon's corporate rights trump the RIAA's corporate privileges. We need some decisions that show that human rights to free expression and fair use of personal property trump corporate claims to profits. What's the EFF got up its sleeve? Or EPIC? The hoary old ACLU? Or maybe Jon Johnassen will free us all [theregister.co.uk] ?

Congress and the admin (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 10 years ago | (#10504742)

It is only a matter of time before RIAA gets congress and the admin to pass more laws that will allow them the ability to do whatever. It is one of the reasons why the picked an ex-republican congressmen to head them up.

Re:Congress and the admin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504810)

You mean then couldn't find a democrat that thought stealing was bad? Oh, what a surprise. I didn't see that coming.....

du'h? (-1, Offtopic)

t_allardyce (48447) | about 10 years ago | (#10504756)

SCROTUM.. heh heh heheheh

RIAA pwned! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10504774)

w00t!

happy
happy
joy
joy
joy

An explanation of the SCOTUS rulings (5, Informative)

shaneFalco (821467) | about 10 years ago | (#10504816)

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?

Not nessasarily. Usually once the Court refuses to hear something the lower courts will honor that position as law. This is what is called a Stare Decisis ruling. Now this ruling is now only pertinent to the district court in which it occured. Other juristicions will usually look to a juristiction that has already ruled on a similar case before issuing its ruling. (The fact the Court has stare decisised this one is gonna do wonders to advance this on other juristictions as well.

The RIAA could theoretically file again in another juristiction, but may be denied by the Court on grounds that there is a SCOTUS ruling in place on the matter (stare decisis does not carry the same weight as a Court ruling). For examples sake, the Pro-life crowd is reluctant to challenge Roe v. Wade until the Court is firmly in conservative hands. If you have a case before the SCOTUS you usually can not be heard again for decades (seperate but equal 1890's; brown v. board 1954... long ass time). So in short.... the RIAA is effectively REAMED.

I always knew mixing political science and computers could be fun :)

Thank you? (1)

pyro101 (564166) | about 10 years ago | (#10504843)

So where can we send a thank you to Verizon?
Remeber that this cost them a good deal of money to do.

can someone explain..... (5, Insightful)

to_kallon (778547) | about 10 years ago | (#10504850)

why the police are not allowed to get an arrest warrant for someone based on their dna, especially pertinent in rape cases, but the riaa can get your first born based on an ip address? something seems a bit skewed to me....
am i the only one?

Constitutional Amendment (1)

Blitzenn (554788) | about 10 years ago | (#10504858)

I had premonition just now. RIAA is going to ask for a constitutional amendment to provide it protection from the citizens in the US.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?