DamnedIfIknow used our news submit to tell us "They"re not gonna stop suing people? What a suprise!"
Justice has prevailed as legal logic has sided against corporate pressure and a citizens right to privacy in the United States of America has been preserved. For the second time, the RIAA has been informed that the 1988 Digital Millennium Copyright Act was not designed as a tool to sidestep the law and force thousands of private citizens identities to be divulged without the prior consent of a judge.
With only one Circuit judge dissenting in the opinion, Circuit Judge Diana E. Murphy reasoned that the rulings hinder copyright holders from easily protecting their works and said repercussions were "too easily ignored or minimized." Furthermore, she felt the filings against anonymous or so-called John Doe defendants were "cumbersome and expensive."
Well that may be your honor, but imagine how cumbersome and expensive it is to defend yourself from easily filed and lopsided lawsuits from a corporation with a staff of thumb twiddling attorneys. Cases that are filed against families just trying to make ends meet with no money for a proper legal defense. Little Johnny Doe Jr., who is 10 and isn't privy to a law written 6 years before he was born is the actual violator in the case, even though the parents are the defendants since they pay the Internet bill.
Whether or not they knew what he was up to makes no difference to these bloodsuckers, all they wish to do is destroy lives in order to set "examples". All in the name of enhanced profit. Think about that, because the fine is $150,000 dollars a pop for each lossy track of Beyonce and the ilk. 100 such tracks and you will have a 15 million dollar lawsuit staring you in the face. Fight or settle it's your "choice", you call that justice? I call it blackmail.
Laws should be written to protect rights, but they should protect everyone's rights, not just corporations or those with deep pockets and staffs of fancy lawyers. My advice to Judge Murphy is not to concern herself with the amount of effort required to enforce a law or to take a position based on how cumbersome something is to apply. She should concern herself with the spirit of the law as it was written at the time it was written and to determine as to whether it applies to a process that did not exist at the time of it's conception.
Then she should wonder if it is proper to expose an individual's identity prior to a court hearing in front of a trained legal mind, rather than from an automated list gleaned from the Internet by an unknown organization. Because no one else feels this way except the RIAA and their evil twin, the MPAA, that also happen to be said unknown organizations employer. This alone should be enough to give any sober mind reason for pause.
The fact of the matter is, this law was intended to thwart full-blown piracy operations involved in the manufacture and sale of copyrighted goods and was conceived prior to the Internet revolution let alone the MP3 codec. Give it a rest for the love of Pete, or if not for Pete's sake, at least for little Johnny Doe and his family. While your at it, why not go after the scofflaws that the laws were written for? Is it because you don't wish to battle against someone with the monetary ability to defend itself from your accusations, would that be too costly or dangerous? Maybe all you are really doing is looking for press, well your getting it.
Source: Yahoo!
