Supreme Court won't hear Internet case -- for now
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Supreme Court won't hear Internet case -- for now

  1. #1
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324

    Supreme Court won't hear Internet case -- for now

    It'll be interesting if the Supreme Court does deal with this and if it considers what happened in Canada. Now granted the Copyright laws in Canada are still rather backwards but their decision may be enough for a precendence elsewhere.

    For those unfamilar with what happened in Canada, a little synopsis: the CRIA attempted to get ISPs to hand over client/user lists that would match up with identified downloaders (based on IP/handle IIRC). The ISPs went to court, saying they wouldn't do it, they wanted a court opinion as to whether they were required or not. Court said that the whole copying issue was similar to "going to a library, taking a book, photocopying it and walking out with the photocopy". It sent a fair amount of reverations to the cyberlaw industry to say the least and the CRIA, who went in with an arrogant attitude, believing they'd never lose, came out rather humbled. This link has some of the details of the case and the appeal that CRIA has applied for.

    Source: CNN

    Supreme Court won't hear Internet case -- for now

    Tuesday, October 12, 2004 Posted: 10:44 AM EDT (1444 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday sidestepped a dispute about whether Internet providers can be forced to identify subscribers illegally swapping music and movies online.

    The subject, however, may be back at the court soon.

    The Bush administration agrees with recording and movie companies which want to use a 1998 law to get information about Internet users, but the administration also had encouraged the Supreme Court to wait to settle the issue.

    The recording industry had sought court intervention now, arguing that more than 2.6 billion music files are illegally downloaded each month and that the law is needed to identify culprits.

    The copyright law was written before file-swapping was common, and an appeals court said it could not be used to get information about people who share copyrighted files.

    "That is crippling the private copyright enforcement that Congress envisioned as a bulwark against Internet lawlessness, and allowing Internet piracy to metastasize," justices were told in a filing by Washington attorney Donald Verrilli, who represents the Recording Industry Association of America.

    "Copyright owners cannot fight back unless they know who the infringers are," he said.

    Lawyers for Verizon Communications Inc., which tried to keep private names and addresses of subscribers, disputed that that the industry has been deterred in going after people who trade copyrighted works by computer.

    More than 3,000 alleged infringers have been sued since the appeals court's decision 10 months ago, Verizon lawyer John Thorne said. Those civil suits identify defendants as "John Doe," then seek court permission to get their names.

    He warned justices that courts could be swamped with tens of thousands of disputed subpoena enforcement proceedings if it sided with the recording industry.

    The Digital Millennium Copyright Act compels Internet providers to turn over the names of people suspected of operating pirate Web sites upon subpoena from any federal court clerk's office.

    The appeals court had said it was up to Congress, not courts, to expand the 1998 law to cover popular file-sharing networks.

    Movie studios and music labels have been aggressively pursuing copyright infringers. Last week, they filed a Supreme Court appeal that seeks to hold two Internet file-sharing services -- Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. -- responsible for their customers' online swapping of copyrighted songs and movies.

    Other cases are pending in lower courts that could give the Supreme Court an opportunity to look at the copyright law, including a dispute involving St. Louis-based cable provider Charter Communications.

    The cases are Verizon Internet Services v. Recording Industry Association of America, 03-1722, and Recording Industry Association of America v. Verizon Internet Services, 03-1579.
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  2. #2
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    While you know my position on privacy versus copywrite; I don't agree with the photocopy from a library analogy. It more like you copy every book in the library in a matter of minutes and never walk into it. Then you copy every book in the next library until you have about a billion copies.

    This thing will eventually have to be heard at the supreme court level. I hope some balance can be achieved in a common sense scenario, there must be some protection to both copywrite material and personal privacy. Chances are privacy will come out ahead of any enforcement ability unless an extreme criminal case can be proved. In either case, untethered copying could mean very little promoted music in the future. Good or bad?

    The final result could be copywrited disks wich totally suck so there is a desire for balance somewhere. Perhaps the answer lies in modifying the industry and how it approaches customers versus trying to detect and block packets on a file sharing network of PRIVATE computers.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  3. #3
    as long as you're using the photocopy for private use, isn't that allowed? i know if you're doing a research paper, and you photocopy the book, the FBI doesn't come knocking on your door. and what about replay tv, or tivo? can't you rip the files from those and put them onto dvd? this whole copyright persecution sucks anyways. Its like me trying to sue someone for eating at burgerking if i work for wendy's. they're not getting their burgers from my business, so i can sue them for getting them somewhere else! hey, that could be a good racket!

    -=[t]P=-
    \"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.\" - V

  4. #4
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Copywrite for personal use never was a big issue, until you shared items out to 13 billion other computers. If Wendy's suddenly started marketing "Whoppers" then I would definitely be confused as to which is the "real" Whopper and which is the "copy". To my knowledge no one has copywrite on the "beef patty" and cows. That is until they genetically engineer a rasberry flavored bovine.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  5. #5
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    Copywrite for personal use never was a big issue, until you shared items out to 13 billion other computers
    And since when do libraries limit how many people can see their books or photocopy their books? The analogy is a rather good one in a lot of ways. For instance, the Ottawa Public library had over 4 million visitors in 2003 with over 9 million items in circulation for the same year (apparently this is an increase of 28% over 2001-2003). Now, Ottawa as a population is around 250,000 (last time I checked -- I think the Regional Municipality might be around a million total).

    f Wendy's suddenly started marketing "Whoppers" then I would definitely be confused as to which is the "real" Whopper and which is the "copy".
    That'd be like the Rolling Stones laying claim to Let it Be. Those that share out music, from what I've seen, haven't made claims to being original nor to making a profit so I don't know if that works with this situation as an analogy.

    can't you rip the files from those and put them onto dvd?
    Yes. The idea is that you can do whatever you want for personal use. Now, that said, Canadian Copyright Law and the decision made earlier this year seems to suggest that if I decide that for my personal use it will be there for others to see and copy, then I'm doing no different than if I gave a student a text book to copy, to which they passed it on to friends to copy (this is actually a common practise amongst cash-strapped students -- and I've seen some near starving students, some who've gotten free lunches from me).
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  6. #6
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    One thing that is different here. It is illegal in the US to photocopy and then distribute those copies from a library. So if I photo copy Stephen King's "IT" then give away copies I violate copywrite. That is not true in Canada? If not then we are talking apples and oranges. It appears that canadien copywrite law is very different and it seems that there is no ability for someone who makes a recording to keep it as his or her own property?
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  7. #7
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    The law about photocopying books is similar, AFAIK. Technically, you're not allowed to copy more than 10% of the book. But I don't think it's ever been truly challenged in court or enforced which makes me wonder how strong it actually is. That said, it has been recognized that copyright laws in regards to digital media is definately behind in Canada compared to the US.

    The issue of individual privacy is sorta shot in the US but is a bit stronger in Canada (partially due to the recent use of PIPEDA).
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  8. #8
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    I really can't say how the supreme court would act on this. In the past the generally weigh heavy on constitutional right to privacy with a window for law enforcement in "Criminal" circumstances. If they use the same methodology as they do in conventional "wire tapping" then we may have some protection a citizens. If not then technology will present "other" methods to bypass the law. Doesn't it always?
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  9. #9
    the thing that really ticks me off is that canads gets a bad rap in shows like South Park, but yet they have all of these cool things like copyright laws that noone (authority) cares about, and mounties, and the digital media laws are less "evolved" than the us. that's it! i'm moving! and what happened to the music being about the fans? oh that's right it was taken away around the same time that they saw the hot shot record labels weren't making four kazillion dollars a week. i'm so sick of all of the RIAA bullsh*t. either the laws need to evolve or the music industry needs to evolve. don't charge people for the music, charge for the software, that'll end the battle real quick. i'll admit that i enjoy downloading songs every now and then, but if i find one i really, really like (rare occasion, because music sucks nowadays) i'll go buy the cd. what's wrong with a little preview, especially with bands you can't hear on the radio.

    and doesn't the computer have to piece together the song once you've downloaded it, which diminishes some of the parts, creates "holes" where you get some static? cause a lot of the music that i've downloaded, even at high bitrates has static. wouldn't that or the fact that the compression throws out parts to the song, make the copyright viod, since technically it's not the same song? just wondering.

    -=[t]P=-
    \"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.\" - V

  10. #10
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    The "static" you get is from a bad rip - not downloading the file.

    Terrance and Phillip don't actually represent Canada? OMG!
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides