 |
| |
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...loading_music_4
Net Providers Must Help in Piracy Fight
Tue Jan 21, 6:56 PM ET
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Internet providers must abide by music industry requests to track down computer users who illegally download music, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in a case that could dramatically increase online pirates' risk of being caught.
The decision by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates upheld the recording industry's powers under a 1998 law to compel Verizon Communications Inc. to identify one of its Internet subscribers who was suspected of illegally trading music or movies online. The music industry knew only a numerical Internet address this person was using.
The ruling means that consumers using dozens of popular Internet file-sharing programs can more easily be identified and tracked down by entertainment companies trying to prevent the illegal trading of movies and music. For consumers, even those hiding behind Internet aliases, that could result in warning letters, civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution.
"Just because you can doesn't mean it's legal to become a digital Johnny Appleseed," warned Michael McGuire, an industry analyst for Gartner Inc., a research firm in Stamford, Conn.
Verizon promised Tuesday to appeal and said it would not immediately provide its customer's identity. The ruling had "troubling ramifications" for future growth of the Internet, said Verizon's associate general counsel, Sarah B. Deutsch.
"The case clearly allows anyone who claims to be a copyright holder to make an allegation of copyright infringement to gain complete access to private subscriber information without protections afforded by the courts," she said.
Deutsch said Verizon planned no immediate changes to disrupt sharing of computer files among its customers.
Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites), which won the case, said piracy is a "serious issue for musicians, songwriters and other copyright owners, and the record companies have made great strides in addressing this problem by educating consumers and providing them with legitimate alternatives."
The judge acknowledged the case was an important test of subpoena powers Congress granted copyright holders under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites).
The judge said that controversial 1998 law, enacted to uphold copyrights online, lets music companies force Internet providers to turn over the name of a suspected pirate upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office, without a judge's order.
Critics of the procedure said judges ought to be more directly involved, given the potential privacy issues of a corporation revealing personal information about customers amid an allegation of wrongdoing.
"This puts a huge burden on Internet service providers," said Harris Miller, head of the Washington-based Information Technology Association of America, a trade group. "It turns them into judge, jury and executioner just because someone makes an allegation about a problem."
In the past, the entertainment industry has acknowledged accusing one subscriber of illegally offering for download the movie "Harry Potter (news - web sites) and the Sorcerer's Stone," even though the computer file in question actually was a child's book report on the subject.
"There's almost no judicial supervision here," said Stewart Baker, who represented a trade group of Internet providers that sought to intervene in the case.
The Computer and Communications Industry Association, which fought the music industry on this issue, predicted its rival "will be cranking up its presses pretty quickly" to send threatening letters to Internet users sharing songs and movies.
"We're just sort of shaking our heads," said Will Rodger, a spokesman for the computer group, whose membership includes one firm, Streamcast, that creates file-sharing software. "This has the potential to really mushroom out of control, to be very burdensome."
During a contentious court hearing in October, the judge lamented ambiguities in the copyright act, saying Congress "could have made this statute clearer." At the time, the music industry said a ruling in its favor could result in warnings to scare Internet pirates into taking their collections offline.
"We would hope that the RIAA and other copyright holders would wait until this matter was decided by the Court of Appeals before flooding service providers with requests," Deutsch said.
The case arose from efforts by the recording association to track down a Verizon customer who was freely sharing copies of more than 600 songs by well-known artists.
Sherman said his organization, once it knows the Verizon customer's identity, would "let them know that what they are doing is illegal."
Through programs like Kazaa, Morpheus and Gnutella (news - web sites), a person can find virtually any song or movie — sometimes even before it's released in stores — and download it for free. On a typical afternoon, about 3 million people are connected on the Kazaa network and sharing more than 500 million files.
Nothing like vigilantee justice to stir compassion and admiration for the underdog victim RIAA. 
So much for due process...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MoonWolf
|
|
The music industry is only making it worse for themselves. First; when you download an MP3, you don't steal anything, you copy it. They cry about how much they loose; in fact it's how much they would have earned if all that music was bought instead. Would a student ever have bought all the 3000 songs he has as MP3s? No way! I download some music but it's to listen to it before I potenially buy it. Ok, I might keep it if I don't find it good enough to buy, but what's the big deal? I wouldn't have bought it anyway! Some music I don't even find in the CD-shops.
A funny story:
I bought a CD in my favourite shop (alternative music, one of those that one person owns and runs. Love the atmosphere). During the trade, I disvovered one of the CD's had the ugly "Copy Protection" mark. I told him I prefer to have my favourite CD's on my PC as MP3s (not for sharing, more easy to listen to). "Yes, it sometimes won't play on my CD-player (normal, not CD-ROM)" he said and showed me how to bypass the copy protection.
This Copy Production, Cactus Shield I think, includes a data track and a CD-player for computers. This CD-players works only on Windows-computer I think and cosumes quite a lot of CPU-power... Good choices, music industry!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
DP
Last edited by SpencerH on 22-01-2003 at 19:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 The RIAA is just delaying the inevitable: Their obsolescense as greedy middlemen due to new technology is drawing closer and closer. Just a matter of time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
OK, perhaps theft is the wrong term. But it is receiving stolen goods though. |
How is it a "stolen" good? If you stole a CD from a store and sold or gave it to me, then yes, that would be receiving a stolen good. But if you buy a CD, post it on the web for all to see, and I come across and download it, what "good" has been stolen? The CD was paid for, after all.
So is anyone who has made a mix tape from their store-bought cassette tapes guilty of a felony?
quote:
AFAIK intent is a big component in these issues so if you were prosecuted you might claim that you didnt know it wasnt stolen, but I think that a court would say that it was a reasonable assumption for you to make and find you guilty. |
But first we'd have to get to the point of who is responsible for what crime. If I download a piece of music to listen to, what has been stolen? Unless a court could prove I profited from it by perhaps slapping it on a CD and selling it, I don't think they can reasonably assume anything. Courts aren't supposed to assume anything, anyway!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
|
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How is it a "stolen" good? If you stole a CD from a store and sold or gave it to me, then yes, that would be receiving a stolen good. But if you buy a CD, post it on the web for all to see, and I come across and download it, what "good" has been stolen? The CD was paid for, after all. |
By keeping the MP3's you're stealing or abetting in the theft of intellectual property.
quote:
So is anyone who has made a mix tape from their store-bought cassette tapes guilty of a felony? |
According to what the RIAA want yes. Thats why they're *******s, doomed to lose.
quote:
But first we'd have to get to the point of who is responsible for what crime. If I download a piece of music to listen to, what has been stolen? Unless a court could prove I profited from it by perhaps slapping it on a CD and selling it, I don't think they can reasonably assume anything. Courts aren't supposed to assume anything, anyway! |
Courts assume lots of things are reasonable behaviour (or not) in order to set precedents. If you download a CD and listen to it once then toss it, it could be argued that there's no abuse of intellectual property laws. If you keep it for a year and listen to it every day then you should have bought it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-01-2003 08:18
. I have stole plenty of music from the internet.
|