The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals slammed the RIAA hard today, denying them the ability to obtain subpoenas, at least in the Eastern District of Missouri.

According to the court's decision" (Click here for PDF file.

"The dispute arose when the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) requested the clerk of the district court to issue subpoenas under § 512(h) to Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter),1 in its capacity as an ISP, requiring Charter to turn over the identities of persons believed to be engaging in unlawful copyright infringement. The district court issued the subpoenas and denied Charter's motion to quash. We reverse."

Why? Among other things, "This Circuit has never determined whether music downloaded from P2P systems violates the copyright owner's rights or is a fair use. The RIAA, to our knowledge, has never prevailed in any infringement actions brought against individual downloaders."

It's looking like the RIAA is coming to the point where they have to present an actual case.

If they ever had one.

That's a hell of a way to start out the new year. Boo Hoo for you.. RIAA.

Welcome to 2005, RIAA. May your collective greedy egos handed back to you, asshats.

Another court victory. Let me tell you, we can definitely use every victory we get. It affirms that not everyone in our political establishment has gone insane yet. The RIAA shrugged off the loss publicly, but privately they're furious. They're 0 for 2 in appeals court now on this issue.

Happy New Year, Mr. Sherman.

:-:~ Phantom

Well, well, well, Happy New Years everyone! Seems the courts have told the majors put up or shut up.

This will either result in a new round elsewhere to show their ire at the system not playing ball or effectively stops the economic terrorism and bullying till they prove their case with something besides retortic.

Our trolls will have to strain to make something to try and paint a happy face on this one.

"Our trolls will have to strain to make something to try and paint a happy face on this one."

They can't. This is one for justice.

Great Start into 2005!

They aint gonna like that one, hehehe.

The World does need more Anti RIAA & MPAA Judges in the Courts on Earth!!!

Now why can't this have the knock on effect of being adopted accross the USA? Your law system over there is weird! If it was in the UK it would set a precendent for ALL courts in the country.

Anyhow this is the 'first' time I have seen a court say publicly that there is no 'proof' that anyone has violated copyright because it's never been tested in court yet.

I applaud the judge for his decision. But if it goes to the supreme court and goes in the RIAA/MPAA's favor it overides all other court decisions?

Filed: 2003
Complete: 2005
The legal system needs a good overhaul.

Folks. This won't stop the RIAA's lawsuits. It only blocks them from using the DMCA to obtain filesharer IDs. They can still get IDs through "John Doe" subpoenas to ISPs. This will make no difference whatsoever in slowing RIAA down.

Judges have grand children & nieces &
nephews too. Anyone of which could be
the next victim of the RIAA. This has got
to be a factor in this latest decision.

DeadMan -- The entire UK would fit in Texas with probably enough room to squeeze Portugal in, too.

"Now why can't this have the knock on effect of being adopted accross the USA?"

Because there's nothing to adopt. This court merely said that, as far as they could tell, there was no proof that anyone did anything in violation of the law. Other district courts weighing in on this have only refused the blanket subpoenas and forced the RIAA to file individual cases.

If it goes to the Supreme Court, it overrides all other court decisions, but the only big question in this one was whether the RIAA could accuse more people.

In any other industry, the filing of thousands of cases based on the *absence* of a law defining behavior would be defined as frivolous.

I would go so far as to say that if the Teamsters were engaging in this behavior -- suing thousands, pushing for fast settlements and never taking anyone to court -- they'd be held up on extortion charges in a heartbeat. And they own even more Senators than the RIAA.

Think about this one, too.

Even if the RIAA loses the Grokster case, it has no effect whatsoever on the individual file sharer cases. In fact, if Grokster were to be totally exonerated, then the individuals are the only ones left to go after unless, by some miracle, the Supreme Court decides to weigh in on something outside the scope of the case before it. That case is merely about the software in the middle, not the people on the receiving end.

Sooner or later, the swashbuckling tales of pirates and thieves will have to go by the wayside and the RIAA will have to face the realities of law.

I figure they're good for at least five more years.

So unless the RIAA actually takes someone to court instead of settling, the legality of their suits is still up in the air?

Happy New Year RIAA,

Since you're reading this I want to offer you a big fat fuckoff on behalf of myself and the rest of your former customers.

We will enjoy 2005 watching your business model continue to erode.

this is why we need so much for someone to fight it in court and a lawyer who believes this is fair use, to work on the case so that we can finally have a judgement on it. hopefully this'll open the doors for other judges to be more honest.

Obviously the Judges and the politicians are not yet in sync. Maybe it takes more money than the RIAA has to buy them all off. If ole Bush-baby stays in power long enough, he'll probably change that, though.

Damn those "Activist Judges"!

I happened to catch the halftime show at the Orange Bowl last night. If anyone noticed, there was a lot of booing of the performers and it seemed like their lip syncs were all out of whack. I normally don't watch halftime shows but once I saw that Kelly Clarkston (whatever her name is) start singing before the song started I had to tune in to watch this train wreck. By the time Ashley Simpson came on, the booing really got loud. What a great way to showcase the RIAA to start 2005. Let's hope for another record decline for them this year.

G O O D.

I heard about the booing on my local news station, mea2214. I understood that it was for Ashlee Simpson. So there IS a backlash against "pretenders".
I can't find one article about that halftime show. Maybe tomorrow...

Found one...
Posted on Wed, Jan. 05, 2005

Ashlee Simpson Booed at Orange Bowl

Associated Press

NEW YORK - Ashlee Simpson's Orange Bowl halftime performance was a lemon, according to the 72,000-plus Miami crowd. The 20-year-old singer was soured by a discernible chorus of boos from the audience following a performance of her song "La La."

"You make me wanna scream," she sang before the audience jeered.

Simpson was the finale in a trio of halftime performances, following original "American Idol" winner Kelly Clarkson and country singer Trace Atkins. The camera cut away from Simpson's face once the booing - or perhaps one of Simpson's "hoe-down" dances - began.

The negative vocal reaction comes months after Simpson's boo-boo last fall during a live performance on NBC's "Saturday Night Live," which revealed she used background vocal tracks. The mishap was later attributed to acid reflux.

But the Walt Disney Co. gave the crowd a reason to cheer, dispensing a theme park ticket to every fan in attendance. The giveaway, a promotion that could cost as much as $4.3 million if all the tickets are used, is in honor of the 50th anniversary of its Disneyland park in California.

The second season of Simpson's unscripted MTV reality show, "The Ashlee Simpson Show," premieres Jan. 26 and will capture the "SNL" appearance and preparation for her first nationwide tour, which begins Feb. 18 at Los Angeles' Universal Amphitheatre.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/10573071.htm?1c

I thought it was boooooooooo's at half time. Live is live, not memorex. At least they knew what they wanted to hear.
As for the court decision it's a step in the right direction.

"In any other industry, the filing of thousands of cases based on the *absence* of a law defining behavior would be defined as frivolous."

What an ignorant statement.

Allright!!! Some good news for a change. How's that for a FUCK YOU to RIAA!

Fuck off, mroop.

Happy Fucking New Year, RIAA!!!

great news

"Fuck off, mroop."

Heh heh. I was hoping you would attempt a substantive reply that I could laugh at. But seeing as how you don't know what the hell you are talking about, I guess that wasn't going to happen. So let me refer you to FRCP - Rule 11.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm

If in fact there was no law defining behavior, as you so lamely assert, then Rule 11 would come into play and the moving party would be sanctioned. There, now you learned something today!

Well, Mroop,
At least you didn't try to insert your own text and pass it off as "law" this time.

Good to see you still open things up by insulting people.

How are the kids these days ?

"I was hoping you would attempt a substantive reply that I could laugh at."

You assume that I either give a shit or take seriously anything you have to say, which I do not.

However, (and others, please excuse the double-negative) if you do not have a "nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law" then you must be left with a frivolous argument. Like "pirates."

"This Circuit has never determined whether music downloaded from P2P systems violates the copyright owner's rights or is a fair use."

Because there is no law defining it.

Rule 11 does not "come into play" unless someone files a specific motion or the court takes the initiative. So why hasn't it? The RIAA is obviously seeking the reversal of existing law or the creation of a new one.

So what have we learned from this aside? I believe the technical term is zip-point-shit.

"So why hasn't it?"

Because it's not applicable.

"The RIAA is obviously seeking the reversal of existing law or the creation of a new one."

So say you.

So say Orrin Hatch.

""The RIAA is obviously seeking the reversal of existing law or the creation of a new one."

So say you. "

LOL ROFL LOLOLOLOLOLO !!!

Good Grief Mroop !!!
This statement in itself is proof that Mroop is ......

A. A troll
B. Blind
C. Argues just for the pleasure of arguing.
D. Just Plain Ignorant.

Just search the archives for the Bills they
have tried to sneak through ....
( new laws, or changes to existing law, if memory serves ) that have failed.
Add to that Orrin Hatches own statements.
Yup Mroop, you are full of shit, or just plain trying to "bait" George.

E. All of the above

"E. All of the above"

LOL ..
My bad

I forgot that one.
Thanks for reminding me.

I can be kind of "ignorant" sometimes

mroop just hates stupid people.

Hell, you don't have to look through the archives. Try today's Washington Post:

"BSA officials want Congress to secure the cooperation of Internet service providers by amending the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was designed to address potential copyright violations in the electronic age. They say changes are necessary because the original statute was enacted before services took root allowing computer users to swap songs, software and other digital material on a massive scale.

"The campaign to modify the law is part of a broader effort by the BSA to address a variety of copyright and patent issues."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51966-2005Jan5.html

I finally read the decision (hurray for the good guys!) but couldn't get through the dissent. How about that riaa whore judge murphy who probably copied and pasted the riaa brief for his dissent. f-u

"The RIAA is obviously seeking the reversal of existing law or the creation of a new one."

Let's see here - George says REVERSAL of existing law or CREATION of a new one. Then he quotes the Post to support him, which says:

"The campaign to MODIFY the law"

Dreddsnik says:

"LOL ROFL LOLOLOLOLOLO !!!"

I guess he is looking in the mirror and laughing at himself.

"mroop just hates stupid people."

Not necessarily stupid people, just ignorant people who act like they know what they are talking about.

I'm almost in a psotion where they will have to fight it out.

A new law is a change to the existing law.

The DMCA was a new law. It was an amendment to Article 17 of the Constitution.

An amendment is a formal alteration of the law. I believe this classifies as a modification.

So the RIAA wants to change the law that they made to change the law because they lacked the foresight to see the potential of file-sharing, which was the entire point of creating the Internet in the first place.

And I'm ignorant.

C'mon mroop. You're not even trying.

doesn't look like he's going to either.

raoulduke1--What does that mean? Have you been "sued"?

I think he has a client, ShadowMom.

A big Ouch for the RIAA......kinda reminds me of the Titanic.

He's a lawyer? I hope he has a client, and I hope he helps him. Good luck, raolduke!!

Advantage Ziemann.

Or, rather, game Ziemann.

""mroop just hates stupid people."

Not necessarily stupid people, just ignorant people who act like they know what they are talking about."

Gee, since Mroop just described himself here, I guess he's ignorant.

Yesss! *WHAP* to the RIAA. So does boycott-riaa have any plans to take on the RIAA in court? . We could take 'em hands down lol.

Hmm.. fair enough. It seems unfair to hate all stupid people. Just the ones that pretend not to be..