Here is a great article over at CNet that answers some questions that we all may have asked ourselves, now that the RIAA has been straightened out. It's good they posted these issues because people shouldn't be thinking that they can start sharing again without risk. This information is scattered about the Net and maybe you have seen it here and there. But, here it is in one place and gives a very nice interpetation of the present state of affairs.
|
Until now, the RIAA has used an expedited subpoena process provided for under copyright law, which it says allows it to force ISPs to hand over customer names without a judge's approval or even a lawsuit. If Friday's decision stands, the record industry will likely be compelled to take the more time-consuming and costly step of filing "John Doe" lawsuits against people whose identities are not yet known. The person would eventually be unmasked during court proceedings. This option has a possible downside for the RIAA, however. Currently, the trade association knows the identity of the people it names as defendants. By switching to a process in which anonymous people are sued, the RIAA runs the risk of making an embarrassing misstep--by suing a son or daughter of a record label executive or of a U.S. senator, for example. I work at an Internet service provider. What happens if I get a subpoena demanding the identity of one of my users who's allegedly violating copyright law? The RIAA has been using a Washington, D.C., federal court to send subpoenas to ISPs all over the United States. It won't be able to continue to send out these subpoenas from that court any more. If you receive or already have received such a subpoena, you probably don't have to comply with it. But the RIAA has a second option--which is where things get complicated. Its attorneys can use any other court to send subpoenas. If that happens, Friday's decision would not be binding, although other judges could decide to follow it, if they wish. "To date, they've filed everything in D.C., because they had a great decision," Public Citizen's Levy said, referring to an earlier ruling that is now reversed. "Now I think you'll see them shopping in other circuits, where they can be more successful." |
These are just two of the issues addressed in the article. Kudos to CNet for taking the time to pull this together. The RIAA is not going to abandon this war they have waged against the public, Cary Sherman went public immediately with that little nugget.
"This decision is inconsistent with both the views of Congress and the findings of the district court," RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a statement. "It 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. Verizon is solely responsible for a legal process that will now be less sensitive to the interests of its subscribers who engage in illegal activity."
Give it a rest already Sherman. Translation: If it cost's more money to sue these folks we will not cut them any slack and will hit the defendants for more money to cover our expenses and then some. Period paragraph. Let's not give the RIAA any more of our hard earned money for the act of downloading a lossy file. Use good sense, weigh the risks and benefits. However,the RIAA should start looking at the risks and benefits as well. Maybe they should start asking themselves who is buttering their bread?
If only the legal system would take a look at what all the fuss is about. These suits are speaking to a "posterized version" of the original product. It is simply not just, an MP3 is nothing more than a teaser or a convenience type product that should be targeted for portable players or recreational listening. Not for archival use or serious collections. Give it up RIAA the barn door is open! Rejoice in the new millenium of open and free marketing of your products, don't alienate yourself from the rest of the world.
Feel free to discuss this in our Music Downloads, P2P and Legal Issues Forum.
Source: CNet
