by George Ziemann

Let's see, DC District Court, RIAA... Who's going to have the good quotes first... The Washington Post, of course.

Let's start with the Wicked Witch (aka Hilary Rosen):
"I think that the industry that is so far down this path that they can't let this decision stop their efforts against individuals," she said, promising "more surprises."

Good. If the RIAA starts acting like thinking, feeling humans, the public might forget what kind of greedy, arrogant pigs run the music industry. That might improve sales, which we don't want to happen.

In contrast to Rosen's "keep it up" philosophy comes Senator Norm Coleman.

"It had always been clear that litigation wasn't going to provide the solution to the challenges the recording industry faces," said Coleman, who has criticized the recording industry for trying to solve the online piracy problem with lawsuits. "I think this will accelerate a process that's already going on. There's got to be more conversation between the peer-to-peer folks, the technology folks and the industry."

Hey Norm, why should we bother to talk to these selfish lying bastards? I say kick them while they're down, just like they do to the artists under contract.

Then we have this drivel from Cary Sherman, in a "prepared statement":

The ruling "unfortunately means we can no longer notify illegal file sharers before we file lawsuits against them to offer the opportunity to settle outside of litigation."

Gee, Shermy, isn't that the way you started this out? People were finding out about the lawsuits from the press. The only reason you started telling the victims first was because Coleman came down on you guys. Now it's "unfortunate" that you have to actually file a suit.

It's only unfortunate for the RIAA because you can't squeeze people for case on a threat. You have to actually prove your case. It's gonna be expensive. How much more of this can you afford, with the industry being hurt so bad by "piracy," a claim that the RIAA has been making long before peer-to-peer. In 1995, Hilary was claiming a loss of a billion dollars a year to piracy.

Verizon Associate General Counsel Sarah Deutsch called Sherman's assertion "completely disingenuous."

"It's not on their agenda to care about the subscriber or any of the subscribers' rights, but automate the process even further," Deutsch said.

Just this past week, the RIAA stepped up its subpoena efforts by requesting the names of multiple subscribers in a single subpoena. Had it worked, that tactic would have made it even harder for Verizon to notify its customers that they had been targeted by the RIAA, Deutsch said.

"This decision will ensure that the recording industry will have to follow the legal process that everybody else in America uses. Consumers will gain important due process rights," Deutsch said.

But the real prize to American consumers came from Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg

"[The] DMCA betrays no awareness whatsoever that Internet users might be able to directly exchange files containing copyrighted works," Ginsburg wrote. "It is not the province of the courts ... to rewrite the DMCA in order to make it fit a new and unforeseen Internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry."

Before we get too giddy over this part, remember that this decision can always be appealed to a higher court, which is exactly what most intelligent people are hoping for. If the Supreme Court agrees with Ginsburg, the RIAA is screwed, the same position they are currently in.

A number of the posts to the earlier reports of this story have said, "They'll just go back to Congress and have the law changed in their favor."

That's a good thing, too.

Think about it. Even if Bainwol and Glazier get right on this, you're looking at two to three years to actually get legislation through Congress. And that requires that none of the lawmakers have wised up and are willing to pass more anti-consumer legislation to infuse life into a dying monopoly.

And just like the DMCA did not foresee peer-to-peer, by the time they get a stricter law passed, there will simply be something better that they didn't consider.

The industry has always been behind the technological curve. They're never going to catch up, and the law will always trail whatever the RIAA can think up by at least two years.

Meanwhile, the rest of us continue to move ahead, exploring new technology and embracing our fans instead of suing them.

Ah, Christmas. The season for sharing...

Beautifully written.
Allow me to share what I sent to Verizon, I suggest anyone else who can do this to also do this:
---------------------------
Dear Verizon,
I am an avid music downloader and fan, and have been appalled at the RIAA's treatment of fans through their recent sue-them-all campaign. Because of Verizon's efforts on behalf of music lovers everywhere to block the blatantly illegal subpoena process that the RIAA was using, I intend to switch both my cellular service and my current ISP (Comcast) to Verizon. Please send me information regarding both your cellular service (plans, coverage areas in and around Washington, DC) and DSL service (prices, etc).
In addition, I have specific questions regarding these services, such as:
- Will a Verizon account work on my current Sprint phone, or do I need a new phone?
- Does Verizon offer to pay the cancellation fee that Sprint or Comcast will probably want to charge me?

Please contact me to answer these questions at your earliest convenience, in whatever manner (phone/email) works for you.
Best regards,
Michael
---------------------
Reward the companies that stand up for the people.

This has really turned in to a effort in economics for the RIAA and Big 5 labels. Now that they have to investigate and spend considerable amounts of money on each lawsuit, they will have to re-think just how long they can keep this up. Just about every major label is losing money now and can't keep this up indefinitely, despite the RIAA's lawyers desire to keep reaping this cash cow. The message obviously is being generally disreguarded by the general world public to the point where it will not make sense to continue to sue your customers at around $100,000-$500,000 a pop.

So now I think its time to start taking bets on when the sue-em-all campaign will stop, the record labels will consolidate further (or die) and lower prices will be the only thing stopping the Big 5 from losing all control.

I guessing two years, barring a federal bail-out.

Hey Norm, why should we bother to talk to these selfish lying bastards? I say kick them while they're down, just like they do to the artists under contract.


So me where they are I have a few kicks for them

"It had always been clear that litigation wasn't going to provide the solution to the challenges the recording industry faces," said Coleman, who has criticized the recording industry for trying to solve the online piracy problem with lawsuits. "I think this will accelerate a process that's already going on. There's got to be more conversation between the peer-to-peer folks, the technology folks and the industry."

Like you did a lot to help Norm.

A number of the posts to the earlier reports of this story have said, "They'll just go back to Congress and have the law changed in their favor."

That's a good thing, too.

I agree George. It'll be harder to get a law ignoring our rights through when the eyes of all of us are on them. they may try to sneak in a few provisions on bills that are totally unrelated however.

P.S. - Sorry I haven't been around for a while - work has been driving me crazy. The recent subpoena-blocking news made CNN, and I think you all deserve a round of applause for banging this issue off senator coleman and others.
Kudos, team.

LOL. Sharing is a GOOD thing right?

So all they can do right now is wipe their ass with an IP Address. Any attempt to take it further is illegal attempt to invade our privacy. I expect to see Fasttracks numbers double within 2 weeks

I wonder if this means that there will be more business for the EFF, since they were among the first to start attempting to block the divulgence of IP addresses (remember nycfashiongirl?)

Hmm. I still think there is a chance that the RIAA will take whatever targets they still have now and try to soak 'em for everything they've got instead of settling for a few grand - sort of a desperate 'scorched earth' attack designed to scare the wits out of everyone by proving that they can bring families to financial ruin by 'going for the jugular' instead of settling for a smaller sum of money

or perhaps other ISP's will get some backbone and start resisting as well

By the way, here at home I have had Verizon DSL service for the past 5 months. And I have been pretty happy with them - their tech service is not too bad, and I rarely have to wait on the phone for extended periods of time whenever I have needed help.

The RIAA will appeal, but its an all-or-nothing measure. And an unpredictable one. Remember, we only managed to keep VCRs by one vote.

The RIAA, or any other copyright holder, can still identify a user but only by fileing suit. That should raise their costs greatly, so they will be a bit more discriminating now. Once they have a few meetings to discuss this, the sensible action would be to ignore everyone on less than a 2mbit upstream or less than a gig shared. Of course the RIAA isn't sensible.

I have verizon dsl its great, i never wait on the phone for tech support...they are sooo nice.

dsl sucks cable owns i will never be leaving comcast they have let me upload terrabytes since i got my cable in 10th grade i could never betray them =P

I just realized something which may be very significant. Here's a paragraph from the article above.

But the real prize to American consumers came from Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg: "[The] DMCA betrays no awareness whatsoever that Internet users might be able to directly exchange files containing copyrighted works," Ginsburg wrote. "It is not the province of the courts ... to rewrite the DMCA in order to make it fit a new and unforeseen Internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry."

Okay, lawyers and legal types(leflaw, mroop, fossil, code), please correct me if I'm wrong, but here is how I interpret this statement.

Peer-to-peer did not exist when the DMCA was drafted. It is a different concept that could not and WAS NOT considered when the law was passed, simply because it is never mentioned.

Therefore, the DMCA DOES NOT APPLY TO PEER-TO-PEER.

Yes, that is pretty much what he is saying as applied to these particular facts. The DMCA could be applied to P2P, but as far as using it to subpoena ISP's for member info, no can do!

Before you guys open up your shared files to everyone remember this, they still can get you with a John Doe Subpoena. It will cost them a whole lot more money and it will crawl along too. And don't expect $2000 settlements anymore.

Any of the lawyer types please fill us in on what a john doe subpoena is and possibly how it would affect the pace of the lawsuits?

But, it was obvious that their campaign was not going quick enough as they were trying to get multiple people on one subpoena. It sounds like the big 4 were becoming dissatisfied with the slow pace, multiple people on one subpoena would quicken the pace.

Too bad the riaa got a lump of coal in its stocking this year.

one option would be to share very few files and rotate your shared folders. Now with the high cost of going after infringers they'll want to target those that are sharing hundreds and maybe thousands of files first rather then just saying that and hitting someone with ten files.

Actually P2P has been around since the begining of the internet with ARPANET, it was one computer at one university talking to another computer in a different university thousands of miles away, both where equal, and so they were peers, and ARPANET befor it's expantion was a soley P2P network. DMCA was written by gready corperate ass holes, so I refuse to follow it. It also was another 'fine' law created during the Clinton administration.
This is how I see it, DMCA only applies to the corperate bastards who created it.

mroop - "as applied to these particular facts"

It doesn't say that. It says ""[The] DMCA betrays no awareness whatsoever that Internet users might be able to directly exchange files containing copyrighted works."

No awareness whatsoever.

BTW I'm curious as to what Suprises Hillary (the wicked witch of the west) Rosen was refering to.

compmore, I am not aware of the RIAA going after folks who were sharing just a few files - except for that student in S. Carolina. But you are right - the RIAA will continue going after what they call 'major' infringers.

And surfside has a good point: the RIAA will not be content with ~ $2000 settlements given the higher cost of bringing legal action, and I support his quest for learning more about "John Doe" Supoenas.

look at info on john doe subpoenas at the following addresses:

http://www.ncac.org/issues/cybersmears.html

http://www.compugraf.be/display_news.asp?Targetfaq=48

"Actually P2P has been around since the begining of the internet"

Yes, but the entertainment industry wrote the DMCA. They're not scientists, they're not realists, and they didn't have a clue what was really in place or was about to happen. Neither did the Copyright Office, which is still further behind the curve than the RIAA.

No awareness whatsoever.

Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!!

Bufo You're right.
I was refering to the same case. I figured if they were doing it with one they were also doing it with others. thanks for the clarification

Its about time this stopped. If I were one of the people who got their name turned over to the RIAA by my provider I would be pissed as hell. At least Verizon has some balls. If some of my money can go to them they are going to get it.

There is actually two separate but distinct issues here: The first issue deals with DMCA and copyright law -- the second issue involves due process and the procedural rules the legal community has to follow in order to "prosecute".

Its sorta like (in a major stretch) reading rights to a person arrested for a major crime...Or having a warrant before entering your house to search or seize something...

There is actually two separte but distinct issues here: The first issue deals with DMCA and copyright law -- the second issue involves due process and the procedural rules the legal community has to follow in order to "prosecute".

Its sorta like (in a major stretch) reading rights to a person arrested for a major crime...Or having a warrant before entering your house to search or seize something...

They are not saying the DMCA is bad -- but they are saying that you issue subpoenas to prosecute using this tactic becuae it violates due process.

"It doesn't say that. It says ""[The] DMCA betrays no awareness whatsoever that Internet users might be able to directly exchange files containing copyrighted works.""

Yes, this is true and it appears that the judge was correct. But the judge was speaking in regards to the subpoena provision as applied to ISP's. So the RIAA can't use the subpoena provision against ISP's. That is the only thing that this case stands for, so don't get too excited. : )

Essentially, your conclusion "Therefore, the DMCA DOES NOT APPLY TO PEER-TO-PEER" is incorrect. Just because P2P was not in mind when the DMCA was written does not mean that the DMCA cannot be applied to P2P.

"look at info on john doe subpoenas at the following addresses:"

Thanks, I will take a look at this stuff.

mroop, I would buy your argument, if not for the context in which the statement was made, which refers to the "overall structure" of the DMCA, not JUST 512(h).

From the decision...

C. Legislative History
In support of its claim that § 512(h) can – and should – be read to reach P2P technology, the RIAA points to congressional testimony and news articles available to the Congress prior to passage of the DMCA. These sources document the threat to copyright owners posed by bulletin board services

(BBSs) and file transfer protocol (FTP) sites, which the RIAA says were precursors to P2P programs.
We need not, however, resort to investigating what the 105th Congress may have known because the text of § 512(h) and the overall structure of § 512 clearly establish, as we have seen, that § 512(h) does not authorize the issuance of a subpoena to an ISP acting as a mere conduit for the transmission of information sent by others. Legislative history can serve to inform the court's reading of an otherwise
ambiguous text; it cannot lead the court to contradict the legislation itself. See Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135,
147–48 (1994) (''[W]e do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear'').

In any event, not only is the statute clear (albeit complex), the legislative history of the DMCA betrays no awareness whatsoever that internet users might be able directly to exchange files containing copyrighted works. That is not
surprising; P2P software was ''not even a glimmer in anyone's eye when the DMCA was enacted.''

D. Purpose of the DMCA
Finally, the RIAA argues Verizon's interpretation of the statute ''would defeat the core objectives'' of the Act. More specifically, according to the RIAA there is no policy justification for limiting the reach of § 512(h) to situations in which the ISP stores infringing material on its system, considering that many more acts of copyright infringement are committed in the P2P realm, in which the ISP merely transmits the material for others, and that the burden upon an ISP required
to identify an infringing subscriber is minimal.

We are not unsympathetic either to the RIAA's concern regarding the widespread infringement of its members' copyrights, or to the need for legal tools to protect those rights.

It is not the province of the courts, however, to rewrite the DMCA in order to make it fit a new and unforseen internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry or threatens being to the motion
picture and software industries. The plight of copyright holders must be addressed in the first instance by the Congress; only the ''Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new technology.'' See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).

I agree with the judge that the DMCA doesn't contemplate P2P, but that doesn't matter. The DMCA need not contemplate P2P for P2P to fall within the purview of the DMCA.

Even if the judge came right out and stated "The DMCA does not apply to P2P" it still would not be legally binding because this would be considered "dictum". Dictum means "an opinion voiced by a judge on a point of law not directly bearing on the case in question and therefore not binding." You can only read this case to be binding for its specific holding - these types of subpoenas are no good.

No penis jokes please. : )

mroop -- I gotta argue this point.

Copright laws still apply to p2p. I'm not suggesting that sharing RIAA files on p2p suddenly no longer is copyright infringement.

The DMCA provides specific extra protections for copyright owners in the digital age and provides them with ways to combat infringement.

Except for p2p.

As for the "dictum" (sans jokes)...

It may not be binding, but you know the next case will use it as a precedent. So it will have influence. Besides, it's obviously the truth. And when it comes down to it, the truth will win out.

Wow, surfside. The history behind these "John Doe" lawsuits is quite disconcerting. It appears that they are typically used by corporate lawyers to silence those who criticize their respective corporations on-line.

Now, how difficult is it for defendants to challenge such lawsuits? Can organizations like the EFF help those targeted?

All it takes to make a change is one person. One person, trying, and then because of that, another person changing for the better. The only way to change the world is to begin with one person. One will become two, which will become three, and so on. That’s the only way to affect a major change. We can all do this at the ballot box. Pass the word, get involved...seek out candidates that will fight for us...not huge corporations or lobby groups that represent them. Write members of congress....www.congress.org is a good place to start. Check out your congressional members BIO there and check out their PAC contributions! Especially Orin hatch! You'll be amazed at what you find. This is how we begin to get them out of office and win this battle, which is still not quite over yet. This is a big win for us, but we all need to head the RIAA off at the pass.....and that pass is congress.

agreed Bufo. those John Doe lawsuits are a scary thing when used as extortion attempts

You know it is too damn bad that the internet has to be defined by Lawyers and Judges.

Maybe the riaa needs a Rodney King speech, but somehow I do not think that is going to happen.

I watched Tech TV today and they said that the riaa probably knew they were going to lose. It seems that they sent a letter to Verizon asking them to be a part of a coalition to stamp out P2P. Pretty ballsy considering they told Verizon to pound salt a few months ago.

I wonder if these suits are costing the riaa big money. Consider this, it probably is costing them lots of money to keep the computer snoops, and the lawyers. They only get there money from membership dues, and lawsuits. Now the big 4 are probably pitching in on the suits, but a business is not going to throw money into a black hole. That is why you saw them trying to put many people on one subpoena.

I wonder if the riaa is running short of money???

There problem now is instead of a couple of clerks issuing a subpoena they will need lawyers to convince judges that they have enough evidence for a subpoena. You know that is going to cost some money.

I wonder what there strategy will be? Will they go after sharers for $750,000 now? How can a jury award damages to slick suited riaa lawyers facing the likes of Bryanna or even the average joe when no money changed hands?

You have got to wonder if the likes of the new owners of UMG and BMG (who now have to pay for their acquisitions) can afford to sustain what looks like it might be a high cost campaign with very little to show for it.

And the riaa still has to pay for the grammys.

Besides being more expensive to sue, they also don't get that "settlement discussion" wherein they determine if they have a real case or not.

All it will take is a couple of the "I don't even have a computer" cases and other valid countersuits to slow things down even further.

Another point is that, my understanding is that the MPAA was now also thinking of initiating this same RIAA type subpoena campaign, so this couldn't come at a better time. And, if these subpoenas were not legal...does that mean the lower court was allowing the RIAA to commit illegal acts ?

Code,
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but I believe that changes in law are by definition not applicable retroactively, even if they should be. If someone performs an act later made illegal, he can't be charged with a crime because what he did was legal when he did it.

But can damages received be restored?

And vice versa.

George, good question. I don't know. How about the legal eagles out there? Can damages/reparations be overturned by subsequent changes in legal rulings?

...especially if it was settled out of court?

"mroop -- I gotta argue this point."

No prob. : )

"The DMCA provides specific extra protections for copyright owners in the digital age and provides them with ways to combat infringement.

Except for p2p."

Nope. Here's an example. Let's say someone circumvented copy protection in violation of the DMCA and put the hack information on a P2P. The aggrieved party would still be able to sue via the DMCA. They just would not be able to use the subpoena process as the RIAA had been using it.

"It may not be binding, but you know the next case will use it as a precedent. So it will have influence."

Very possible. Judges often throw stuff into their opinions hoping that the next judge will come along and follow their lead.

"Can damages/reparations be overturned by subsequent changes in legal rulings?"

I don't think so. From what I've read the people who settled are beat.

Btw, who were the posters who complained that the DC judges were paid off and in the pocket of the RIAA? I guess not! Also, wasn't Ginsburg the guy who had to withdraw his nomination to the SC because he admitted smoking pot? Yes he was! : )

good point Zippy..but, were the subpoenas legal or illegal to begin with...
the law itself was not changed by the ruling, since the court pointed out that Congress has to change the laws, not the Court. So, it seems to me they merely interpreted the existing law, and as an appelate court, overturned the lower court's interpretation of whether the actions of the RIAA were legal or not.

A court can set a precedent in a ruling, through it's interpretation of existing laws, which other courts can use as their rationale for their rulings, but the law itself does not change unless a.) The Supremes find it unconstitutional and thus invalid under the Marbury v. Madison ruling,
or b.)The proper legislative body makes changes...

lol..or I could be wrong..it's be a loooooooooooong day.

Code... Interesting. I'm sure Mroop is 100% right on when he says those who have settled are already done for. They've signed papers. Too late to go back now. But what about those who haven't settled, and whose cases are still pending? Mroop, care to offer an opinion? The appellate judge ruled the use of DMCA subpoenas illegal the way the RIAA was doing it. Where does that leave those folks?

"The appellate judge ruled the use of DMCA subpoenas illegal the way the RIAA was doing it. Where does that leave those folks?"

If I recall correctly, the appellate opinion is only binding in that circuit. There are 13 federal circuits in the US. I guess if you are in the circuit that came down with the opinion and the RIAA already has your info they can probably use it. But if an ISP is contesting a subpoena request in that circuit then they can rely on the appellate decision and will not have to turn over the information pursuant to the RIAA's subpoena.

However, this appellate decision is not applicable to the other circuits. The appellate courts in those circuits do not have to follow the decision of the circuit that decided today. If the appellate courts in the other circuits decide in a different way then there will be a conflict among the circuits. This conflict will only be decided when one case is appealed to the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court decides then this decision is binding upon all the circuits.

Here is a map of the circuits and an explanation on how there can be different interpretations of the same law depending upon the circuit you are in.

http://www.unl.edu/lawcoll/schmid/class/conaway/intro/courts.htm

"So, for the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit are the ones that count. Decisions from other circuits are "merely persuasive."

Yes, that means the law can be different in different circuits. This is called a split in the circuits and makes it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant certiorari."

Leflaw said in the other thread, "I will represent anyone who wants to sue for a refund on behalf of everyone." He is talking about a class action suit, so I guess he has a legal theory in mind that he is willing to try. : )

"Let's say someone circumvented copy protection in violation of the DMCA and put the hack information on a P2P. The aggrieved party would still be able to sue via the DMCA. They just would not be able to use the subpoena process as the RIAA had been using it."

That's not infringement. You changed the issue.

"That's not infringement. You changed the issue."

Oh, I see what you're saying. I believe that is considered infringement, but let's assume it isn't and we are talking specifically about trading in copyrighted materials. I'm not that familiar with the DMCA. You wrote above:

"The DMCA provides specific extra protections for copyright owners in the digital age and provides them with ways to combat infringement."

I'm not sure what protections are in the DMCA, but if the subpoena provision is the only thing in there for the RIAA to use against people trading in their music then you are right. I thought the DMCA had some harsh damage provisions in there that the RIAA was using as a hammer. Am I wrong? If they are in there then the RIAA can still use them against P2P users, they just can't use the subpoena provision the way the were using it.

My point being: If there is stuff other than the subpoena provision in the DMCA that the RIAA was going to use against P2P users trading in copyrighted materials, they can still use them.

Seems like if anything this will slow them down and cost more money they can't afford to lose if what they have been saying is true. Barely 300+ people out of an estimated 60 Million sharing files online and if they have to try and even trim it down to those with 1000+ files they still might have 40 to 50 million to deal with. Lots of luck(NOT) to the RIAA in fighting this if the ruling is held up.

Excellent article!

'A number of the posts to the earlier reports of this story have said, "They'll just go back to Congress and have the law changed in their favor."'

I've maintained all along that the RIAA had a better chance of overcoming the mess they're in right now concerning file sharing had they decided to continue to do their dirt quietly. They could have had the DMCA amended to their favor without the American public's eyes on their sneaky lobbying moves in Congress.

Won't happen now.

Bragging about the DMCA, filing illegal subponeas left and right and bragging about it in the media, and lashing out at the American file sharing public - calling us 'thieves' and 'pirates' have awakened the sleeping giant. Now we will truly have our eyes on anybody in Congress who will dare to sympathize with the RIAA in getting any amendments to the DMCA passed.

They would have been better off embracing Napster years ago.

'Code... Interesting. I'm sure Mroop is 100% right on when he says those who have settled are already done for. They've signed papers. Too late to go back now.'

I absolutely agree. It was my belief back in June when the subponeas started that no one should agree to settle with the RIAA because it would be an admission of guilt. Even though I'm absolutely no attorney, many legal matters are common sense. I can appreciate how terrified the hundreds of file sharers must have been when they received their subponeas months ago. However, it seemed that they would have had SOME insight not to settle before learning all of their legal options. Very unfortunate, though.

Good point Justice... if the RIAA had not been so public in their attempts to scare the living daylights out of p2p users we would not have as many citizens pissed off at the RIAA and they coulda hurt more people with the "sue em all."

The record industry has always been good at promoting stuff... (look at how well aware we are of boybands and brittney and stuff)

...in this instance, they were promoting their own evil intentions.



Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

They have to scare people in order to fight piracy. They dont have a hope of sueing enough individual users to directly reduce internet downloading, and their attempts to shut down p2p networks have met with intermitent success. The only options left to them are either scareing people from the networks or somehow convinceing ISPs to use p2p-unfriendly policies like monthly caps. (indimidation, secret conspiracys, buying them?). The latter is more an MPAA-like stratagy, the RIAA will just continue to sue users.

Im infringing copyrights right now. Im converting some old VHS tapes of an obscure series called "the secret life of machines" into video files for the p2p nets. Without my infringment, the tapes would be lost to magnetic degredation and the series would fade into (greater) obscurity.

" My point being: If there is stuff other than the subpoena provision in the DMCA that the RIAA was going to use against P2P users trading in copyrighted materials, they can still use them."

I'll concede to you on that.

Of course, the RIAA hasn't been able to stop the trading of identifiable music files. It'll take them a decade to start figuring out how to find anything else, except maybe porn, since they're so fond of it.

No worries for a couple months

.. I say, and say again.. that 2004 is an extremely important year for the registered. Time now to analyze your current representation for their willingness to correct this garbage.. If we change one third of congress to represent real people NOV 2004, we will jump way ahead of the current court ruling.. and start the legislative ball rolling for DMCA repeal/alteration..

ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

Merry Christmas, everyone. It's filesharing season again.

Fa la la la la la la la la....

:-:~ Phantom

LOL PhantomGhost

Just saw a interview on ABC news with the head guy at Bay TSP. It seems that this guy gets off on this whole web police thing. Sort of a web Elliott Ness.

He says he catches 1 million a day. And he issues cease and desist letters to them.

Has anyone heard of this?

If he has been doing this since June, and the number of people on P2P is around 60 million, shouldn't he be done by now?

I will post a list tomorrow of the music legislation of 2003. The RIAA got NOTHING initiated in Congress. We're on a roll. I'd appreciate your comments on each proposed legislation from Lamar Smith, Conyers, Hatch etc.

Will they re-file these warrantless search laws for passage in 2004 or let 'em die a dog's death? We must be vigilant, you know how they are, some breathtaking arrogant plan up the sleeve. Don't forget, the RIAA NEVER wants to appear in court.. They might be asked for a list of song copyrights, and then it's --oooops! There goes the DMCA out the window.

Boucher is filing his Fair Use legislation first day of 109th Congress.

I agree completely Tom!..

My comments on any legislation by Lamar Smith, Hatch et al....
"Horrid , wrongheaded, and unfair"

Bay TSP is just one of many bot-for-hire companies harassing p2p users. They dont have much success. It takes three warnings before an ISP will cut someone off, and the user just goes to another. The complaints are only effective in the US, as they are DMCA-based.

well it looks like its time for the people who have been sued to sue the riaa for damages, they could settle for 2 or 3 million per person, would that not be sweet justic.

Bay TSP

Bloodsuckers Inc. can now crawl back under the rock from whence they came...

Their mission statement should be: "Wrong! Wrong! Absolutely brimming over with wrongability!"