Battle against RIAA / Music Piracy

The U.S. recording industry received a setback in its nationwide campaign to quash music piracy on the Internet when a federal judge ruled on Friday that two universities do not have to comply with subpoenas requesting that they hand over the identities of students who could be illegally sharing music online.
Both MIT and Boston College won their requests to reject subpoenas issued by the Recording Industry Association of America Inc. (RIAA) over jurisdictional issues, according the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

The universities argued that the subpoenas, which were filed in Washington, did not apply to them in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro's ruling in the universities' favor could prove to be an obstacle for the RIAA's piracy offensive, given that the group has reportedly filed some 2,000 subpoenas through the Washington court, according to the EFF.

The ruling could mean that the group will have to file subpoenas in courts across the country where it believes infringement is occurring, a much longer and more complicated process, the EFF said.

EFF staff attorney Wendy Seltzer cheered the decision, saying in a statement that the ruling "confirms that due process applies to Internet user privacy nationwide." The EFF has been battling the RIAA campaign, saying that the group's efforts compromise the privacy of individual users.

The San Francisco-based privacy group isn't alone in its rejection of the RIAA's latest campaign. Pacific Bell Internet Services, a subsidiary of SBC Communications Inc., has filed a suit in California alleging that the RIAA's subpoenas are a threat to subscribers' privacy and a burden on Internet service providers.

What's more, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) has also publicly spoken out against the group, calling the subpoenas a "shotgun" approach to piracy.

The RIAA's spraying of administrative subpoenas is just the latest strategy in a battle against Internet piracy that stems from the early days of the Napster online music-swapping service. And while the group's efforts to go after individual users has sparked some controversy and backlash, its campaign against piracy on the legal front has been mostly successful.

The group managed to knock Napster off-line last year and has since won rulings in cases against Madster -- formerly called Aimster -- and other peer-to-peer file-trading networks.

Having had success in cases against peer-to-peer networks, the industry has now focused on going after individual users with the aid of Internet service providers. Although the latest ruling could slow down the subpoena process, that does not mean that ISPs won't eventually be ordered to comply.

Verizon Internet Services Inc., for instance, lost its bid in June to protect the names of customers accused of illegal file-trading.

The recording industry is using as its defense part of the 1998 U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows copyright holders to subpoena ISPs for the names of people they believe are using their copyrighted material without permission.

The EFF is campaigning for ISPs to notify users when their information is being sought. The group has also created an online database where users can check to see if their identifies have been subpoenaed by the RIAA. The database is at www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/.

The RIAA was not immediately available to comment on the ruling.

Source: IDG News Service

 

FINALY A WIN FOR THE PUBLIC

 

Yeah, but it really looks only like a delay

 

FYI...

RIAA Tactics Under Scrutiny

http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,60460,00.html
Sep. 16, 2003
"A U.S. appeals court wrestled with questions Tuesday over whether the music industry can use special copyright subpoenas in its campaign to track and sue computer users who download songs over the Internet.
- Judge John Roberts of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenged Recording Industry Association of America lawyer Donald Verrilli Jr. on whether computer users downloading music were any different from people who maintain libraries in their homes.
- "Isn't is equivalent to my leaving the door to my library open?" Roberts asked. "Somebody could come in and copy my books but that doesn't mean I'm liable for copyright infringement."...
- Roberts and the other two judges hearing the case also posed tough questions for Verizon Communications, which is challenging the constitutionality of the subpoenas under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. U.S. District Judge John Bates earlier had approved use of the subpoenas, forcing Verizon to turn over names and addresses for at least four Internet subscribers. "You make a lot of money off piracy," Roberts told Verizon lawyer Andrew McBride..."That is a canard," McBride shot back. He said Verizon makes money when computer users purchase songs from online services affiliated with Verizon...
- The three-judge panel must decide whether Bates correctly ruled against Verizon earlier this year. Verizon had argued unsuccessfully that Internet providers should only be compelled to respond to subpoenas when pirated music is stored on computers that providers directly control, such as a website, rather than on a subscriber's personal computer...
- Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) said he planned to introduce a bill Tuesday to protect Internet providers from such subpoenas. His proposal would block subpoenas except in pending civil lawsuits or in cases where pirated data files were stored on computers such as websites..."

 

i dont get it whats the diffrence between blaze listining to top 30 rap songs on radio and recording them on tape recorder vs blaze listing to music on pc and recording it?


this stupit are they going to make tape recorders and cd burners and dvd burners illigal now lets not forget my vcr tapes of recorded tv shows

so do i have to erase my tv show the man show and all the perty juggy girls?

 

Re: The Hunter Becomes the Hunted

FYI...

The Hunter Becomes the Hunted
...recording companies sued for copyright infringement...
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,60574,00.html
Sep. 24, 2003
"Turning the tables on record labels, makers of the most popular Internet song-swapping network are suing entertainment companies for copyright infringement. Sharman Networks, the company behind the Kazaa file-sharing software, filed a federal lawsuit Monday accusing the entertainment companies of using unauthorized versions of its software in their efforts to root out users. Entertainment companies have offered bogus versions of copyright works and sent online warning messages to users. Sharman said the companies used Kazaa Lite, an ad-less replica of its software, to get onto the network. The lawsuit also claims efforts to combat piracy on Kazaa violated terms for using the network...
- The Recording Industry Association of America called Sharman's 'newfound admiration for the importance of copyright law' ironic and 'self-serving.' Recording companies sued 261 music fans this month, claiming they were illegally distributing hundreds of digital song files apiece over the Internet. The industry trolled file-sharing networks such as Kazaa and downloaded song files from users' computers. Once the industry determined a downloaded song file was a copyright work, they issued subpoenas to Internet access providers to find out who was behind the account used to log onto the file-sharing network.
- Meanwhile, the recording industry group has dropped one of the 261 lawsuits, a case filed against a 66-year-old sculptor who apparently was targeted in a case of mistaken identity. Sarah Seabury Ward, of Newbury, Mass., was accused of illegally sharing more than 2,000 songs through Kazaa, including rapper Trick Daddy's 'I'm a Thug.' The music companies threatened to hold her liable for up to $150,000 for each song. After Ward's lawyer complained that Ward is a 'computer neophyte' who never installed file-sharing software or downloaded any songs, the case was dropped in federal court in Boston on Friday."