ISP Pac Bell files suit against RIAA

[goldie]

.........and the beat goes on, on, on and on.

Pacific Bell

Good Luck and Go Get 'em!!

[multi]

RIAA have little to worry about ..now they have a new boss who has influence in the government in power..

why does pac-bell think they will have a better chance against them than verizon..?
but i cant disagree...wit ya goldiegirl..
so yeah...
go get 'em...

[goldie]

Well, unless i'm mistaken, Verizon wasn't the initiator.

I'm hoping because an ISP is taking the offensive this time.......perhaps, just perhaps, they'll have a bit more luck........

[TankGirl]

Originally posted by goldenrod
Well, unless i'm mistaken, Verizon wasn't the initiator.

I'm hoping because an ISP is taking the offensive this time.......perhaps, just perhaps, they'll have a bit more luck........

It would be a great thing to have the RIAA getting entangled into a number of lengthy, expensive and PR-wise catastrophic court cases against ISPs and other corporations. They may easily intimidate private netizens but not so with corporations with deeper pockets. High profile court cases also get extensive news coverage which makes it harder for the politicians to quietly side with the RIAA and accept their corruption money without having to pay a political price for it.

- tg

[theknife]

Pac Bell has received 207 requests from the music industry to turn over the names of some of its customers, one request from a pornography company for the identities of 59 customers, and more than 16,000 warnings from an independent copyright investigator, the company said in its suit.

sheesh - how'd you like to be one of these porn trading 59 people, if and when Pac Bell loses? you're not just getting sued for copyright infringement...you're getting sued for stealing porn. wait till your name goes public..

music traders who get busted have a certain nobility...it's instant Internet martyrdom for a righteous cause.

but when you're publicly subpoenaed for stealing porn, you will be cast into the gutter of public opinion

[scooobiedooobie]

A bit of good news.....



"The recording industry's wave of subpoenas that target individual computer users has drawn the critical attention of at least one influential lawmaker on Capitol Hill.

"Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, sent a letter to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on Thursday that criticized its recent spate of subpoenas and asked for detailed information on how the process is working. Coleman said the RIAA may be going too far."

"In his letter, Coleman asked for several key pieces of information, including copies of all subpoenas issued, descriptions of the process that's used to obtain the subpoenas and the information used to justify them, and descriptions of any ways the RIAA was protecting the privacy of the individuals involved."

"Clearly, I do not condone illegal activity, however I am confident that there may be a more circumspect and narrowly tailored method that the RIAA could utilize to prevent substantial illegal file sharing," Coleman said. "As a former prosecutor, I know first hand the power of a subpoena, and I am concerned about the potential for abuse in the current system."

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5058594.html

[scooobiedooobie]

This is the entire letter that Sen. Coleman sent......

"On June 25, 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced plans to file "thousands of lawsuits charging individual peer-to-peer music distributors with copyright infringement."

"According to press reports, the RIAA has won at least 911 subpoenas since June 26, 2003 in order to garner information for the civil lawsuits that could be filed against consumers who are alleged to have illegally used file-sharing programs. These lawsuits would seek civil penalties from $750 to $150,000 per song. The RIAA asserts that only those who traffic in 'substantial' numbers of files will be targeted.

"However, when filing an application for a subpoena, the RIAA does not differentiate between nominal file sharers and those who trade dozens or hundreds of files. Subpoenas have been won for computer users who shared as few as five songs.

"The RIAA subpoenas have snared unsuspecting grandparents whose grandchildren have used their personal computers, individuals whose roommates have shared their computers, as well as colleges and universities across the United States like Boston College, DePaul University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Individuals like Bob Barnes, a grandfather from Fresno, California, are not immune from devastating financial loses. Mr. Barnes is facing $45 million in penalties for downloading some of his 'oldie' favorites.

"This barrage of RIAA subpoenas is creating such a backlog at the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, that the Court has been forced to reassign clerks to process the paperwork. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the D.C. District Courthouse is 'functioning more like a clearing house, issuing subpoenas for all over the country.'

"Surely it was not Congress’ intent when it passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to short-circuit due process protections, relegate a U.S. District Court to providing 'rubber-stamp' subpoenas, enable the music industry to collect information about consumers with little or no restrictions, and place numerous average consumers at risk of bankruptcy.

"The industry has legitimate concerns about copyright infringement. It is imperative to note that we are dealing with stealing artists’ songs and the industry’s profits. The industry has every right to develop practical remedies for protecting its rights. Yet, the industry seems to have adopted a 'shotgun' approach that could potentially cause injury and harm to innocent people who may simply have been victims of circumstance, or possessed a lack of knowledge of the rules related to digital sharing of files. I am sure it is not the industry’s intent to needlessly cause harm in its efforts to legally protect its rights. Yet, the law of unintended consequences may be at work in this matter.

"As you may know, I have an abiding interest in protecting the privacy rights of individuals. Clearly, I do not condone illegal activity, however I am confident that there may be a more circumspect and narrowly tailored method that RIAA could utilize to prevent substantial illegal file sharing. As a former prosecutor, I know first hand the power of a subpoena and I am concerned about the potential for abuse in the current system.

"Given these concerns, please provide the following **documents and narrative responses to the Subcommittee no later than Thursday, August 14, 2003."




**Documents and narrative responses requested......


Copies of all subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers (ISP) requesting information about subscribers;


A description of the standard the RIAA is using when filing an application for a subpoena against an ISP with a US District Court;


A description of the methodology it's using to secure evidence of potentially illegal file sharing by computer users;


A description of the privacy safeguards the RIAA uses when securing this information in an effort to prevent unfair targeting of de minimus users; and,


A description of how it's, "protecting the rights of individuals from erroneous subpoenas".

[multi]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury...
there is a time in human history ...when the truth must be presented...as we aproach the threshold , the balance if you will of the future of mankinds creativity...

we as humans are natrual born creators.. of works of art ,ideas and many a fanciful story..i speak not now only for the creators of the past but for the creators yet to be born..those creators still within the heart of creation so to speak..

in the days prior to the advent of the printing press there was a similar time when the wealthy started investing in the new technology...and the work they could buy for small sums..and of course resell at a profit..

then there was those that would create to entertain their fellow man, for a small return or maybe even just the pleasure of it...

they had one off performaces..or handwritten creations on offer..but the medium was limited...and many were commisioned away from their audiences
the printing press soon changed all that..

i would like to draw attention to:

Millar v. Taylor

The court of King's Bench, the highest court of the common law, divided on the question, the majority supporting Lord Mansfield, who went to the furthest possible extreme in his identification of the right of exclusive copying and selling the copies of one's manuscript with the right of exclusive holding and selling physical things and their products… copyright … like the ownership of physical objects, the perpetual property of the author, his heirs and assigns forever.
This outcome Mansfield expressly contemplated, saying, "property of the copy thus narrowed (i.e. defined as a common-law right] may equally go down from generation to generation, and possibly continue forever." This conclusion was vigorously protested by Justice Yates, the only dissenting justice, saying, "This claim of a perpetual monopoly is by no means warranted by the general principles of property." (Commons 1924: 275)

and from..the proceedings from the trial which finally ended the so called battle of booksellers, that had been going on since the passing of the statute of Anne in 1710. In several trials during more than 60 years both the book industry and the judges had been fighting over the question whether the statute of Anne really abolished a common law perpetual copyright. The trial betweeen the Scottish booksellers Messrs. Donaldson and the London bookseller Mr. Beckett concerned the rights to Thomson's "The Seasons", the same book that had also caused the Millar v. Taylor trial. Donaldson v. Beckett finally settled this matter, with only one vote's majority among the 11 judges. The decision held that authors, according to common law, had the exclusive right to the first publication for perpetuity, but the right was annulled once the work was published. London, 1806-1820, vol. XVII.)


from the Donaldson v. Beckett case..

”The booksellers, he observed ... had not, till lately, ever concerned themselves about authors, but had generally confined the substance of their prayers to the legislature, to the security of their own property ...”

”... what property can a man have in ideas? whilst he keeps them to himself they are his own, when he publishes them they are his no longer. If I take water from the ocean it is mine, if I pour it back it is mine no longer.”


(v) The Statute of Queen Anne, 1710

An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned, more commonly called the Statute of Queen Anne, had three objectives. First, it was intended to prevent any future monopoly of the book trade. Second, it was intended to draw Scotland under a common copyright law to resolve the ‘piracy’ controversy. Third, it was intended to encourage production and distribution of new works. The vehicle chosen to achieve all three objectives was the Creator.

Until the Statute, the Creator had no economic and limited moral rights to a work after it was sold. Generally, a work was bought outright by a printer/bookseller/publisher for a flat one-time fee much like an ‘all-rights’ or blanket license today. No royalties flowed to the Creator from subsequent sales. Creators did enjoy certain ‘moral rights’ including the right not to have the text changed and the right of attribution. Such rights, however, were based on ‘ethical’ practices of the printers’ guild, not the law. from

and it seems when music became recordable the same happened again as well ,to that facet of creativity



...you wil notice ladies and gentlemen i am not using the word "ART"..for that i fear is really what is being bought and sold here...

public opinion proclaims somthing to be a work of art or even an art form..


but I ask" what about creativity"..how much should we limit the scope of this human asset...withold it from any that cannot pay the price?
its not something that can be witheld...it is not a tangible thing... it really cant be stopped ..or bought and sold for that matter....but art can....
there for the bussines of proclaiming somthing to be "art" and therefore ownable and marketable..or deemed to be rubbish..
when someones creativity becomes popular...it is because of the creator...and now for the first time creators can breakout of the cycle of "if i want to publish my words or music publicly i must pay someone to do it for me.."
people in the music industry are scared of loosing their existance..but how many existaces will they be denying..

to tamper with the freedoms of the internet is to stifle an evolving facet of human creativity...creativity on a scale never witnessed on this planet..

i believe the forces at work to change laws in the way the internet works and how its users are allowed to interact...run the risk of destroying that unique creativity wich is the nature of the web and replacing it with a bland "one size fits all"corporate approved replacement...

you maybe thinking "whats your point" right now..
well the point is my friends..we have come full circle ...the point of no return..

that concludes my opening argument..
© multi@napsterites.net - 2000-2003