CNet posts FAQ concerning effect of RIAA Verizon decision

I just posted the article CNet posts FAQ concerning effect of RIAA Verizon decision.

  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...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7407-CNet-posts-FAQ-concerning-effect-of-RIAA-Verizon-decision.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7407-CNet-posts-FAQ-concerning-effect-of-RIAA-Verizon-decision.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

Good 'ol GeeDubbyaLand…where else can the rich and powerful shop around for a law that suits… If that recent decision is not accepted by other circuit judges and decisions are made in favour of the RIAA these judges may be seen to have been coerced (lets not bandy words)…bribed…Unless in making their decision, they have investigated the broader concept/problem concerning file sharing and if that is so, then it won’t be a matter of twat sherman toddling off to another court for a favourable decision. It’s time for those who believe in a free web and have the can do, to bring the actions of the RIAA and ilk (particularly the decision makers) under a closer LEGAL scrutiny. One has to ask ,why was it ever possible for these people to issue supoenas, without the approval of a judge, to all and sundry (lets call this “buckshot law”…ie…fire off a ***tpile hoping to hit something)… Mebbe it’s time politicians (everywhere) were made accountable…I mean REALLY accountable…but hey, this is just my opinion…:X [offensive language removed]
[edited by Crabbyappleton on 21.12.2003 17:20]

I like the idea of politicians or even better Sherman’s son or daughter being “victim” of such lawsuits :d

***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. *** Since when are they allowed to break the law, then? I thought everyone was supposed to be equal for the law?

In GeeDubbyaland your bank account determines your “equality”…:X

The problem was no one could risk financially the possible fines to prove what Verizon just did. Even if they won the privacy issue, they would then suffer the full force of the fines that the RIAA probably could get. The RIAA knew it and was having a ball. Even though it was MP3’s that were being shared. At least the US legal system was able to determine finally that the RIAA interpetation of the DMCA was erroneous, as we all have been saying for months. To me this has always been a violation of privacy issue. In addition, I feel it is not acceptable to say that those already subpoened are out of luck. IMHO those folks cases should be thrown out of court as the information was not obtained properly. The RIAA was a horrific example of what happens when the unqualified or greedy are given too much power. Now the problem is people are being punished as though they are running a cd factory, publishing exact copies of artists content at a profit. For Cary Sherman to sit there and sue people that upload an MP3 for 150,000 a copy is just as twisted an interpetation as when they forced the ISP to give up it’s customers identity. Don’t kid yourself, the next bunch to face the legal system will be sued to the fullest extent of the existing law, as this will be the new strategy. Also, don’t kid yourself if you think that it is only going to happen in the US, money makes the world go round my friends. Our only hope is the US will set an appropriate example for the rest of the world. So, let’s hope that another organization will fight for consumers just as Verizon did and finally put an end to Cary Sherman and the RIAA inquisition. Hooray for Verizon!!! The Internet RuleZ!
[edited by Crabbyappleton on 21.12.2003 18:00]

Sheriff your view is skewed it’s obvious, the DMCA which the RIAA was using was pased in 1998, 2 years before Bush even took office, so lets get that straight right now.

In response to NHJ BV: “Since when are they allowed to break the law, then? I thought everyone was supposed to be equal for the law?” You gotta be kiddin’ - Surely you can’t be THAT naive?!?!?

In response to Kamikazee… Yeh my view is skewed, my view is skewed because america farts and the rest of the world has to put up with the bad smell… My view is skewed because insignificant pissant politicians in america want the rest of the world to adhere to what are basically american home laws… My view is skewed because these “home laws” are surrepticiously “slipped” in to seemingly benign agreements which are signed by politicians who don’t know/care/realise the implications of these “riders”… My view is skewed because I’ve had enough of this “in yer face”…“If it aint american it aint right”…“if you aint with us, your against us” attitude…I’m sick of your “reality shows”…your poxy pictures and plastic music…your fast food and yer crappy cars…Oh, and your poncy politicians… If I had money to burn I would buy every american (who so wished) a holiday in another country so they could see for themselves that humans actually exist outside USA…you know…that have their own language and culture… And last time I looked, MY flag was flying over my parliment…so geedubbya can kiss my a**e (edited for you crabby)… BTW I cannot see any reference to the DMCA in my earlier post … :X

Hey guys/gals… Go read the decision. There is a link on the EFF site. The judge also address’s some major points which I hope will also be brought into the light. In his opinions he stated that the DMCA wasn’t crafted to protect against P2P and the only Congress really has the power to draft another law to deal with it. This indicates that someone is finally looking at the abuses of power such as charging a single person 150,000 for uploading one song. Hopefully we will soon see the end of BILL CLINTON’s legacy and see some reason come about.