[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dvd-discuss] DMCA issue? RIAA (so SUE ME!)
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: [dvd-discuss] DMCA issue? RIAA (so SUE ME!)
- From: Marcia Wilbur <aicra(at)well.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
- In-reply-to: <3F0328E8.D7A62237@xinetd.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
If you have the time or desire to read this long "argument"(?), let me
know what you think is flawed with this. Just really let me
have it! I'd appreciate that...
after reading it, maybe someone can explain to me why the DMCA is
invoked at all...wrt music.
While I understand that some people might NOT realize or comprehend the
actions the RIAA undertakes with regard to music and music downloads are DMCA related, I
think they are not DMCA related for other reasons. (i.e. AHRA).
However, the RIAA has invoked the DMCA on many occasions regarding music
downloads. RIAA has subpoenaed to identify infringers using section 512
Section 512 (h)
h) SUBPOENA TO IDENTIFY INFRINGER-
`(1) REQUEST- A copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the
owner's behalf may request the clerk of any United States district court
to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged
infringer in accordance with this subsection.
****(define infringer. If infringer means someone infringing on
music copyright and these people were making music
copies for personal use, then no, those people were NOT infringers and
not even alleged infringers. The only thing that might make them alleged infringers
is if they were sharing/downloading for commercial purposes or to a device
specifically designed to store and record music)****
`(2) CONTENTS OF REQUEST- The request may be made by filing with the
`(A) a copy of a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A);
`(B) a proposed subpoena; and
`(C) a sworn declaration to the effect that the purpose for which the
subpoena is sought is to obtain the identity of an alleged infringer and
that such information will only be used for the purpose of protecting
rights under this title.
***(sworn declaration if the RIAA representative or copyright
owner/rep wrote a sworn declaration alleging infringement because someone was
copying music for personal use then, the RIAA is alleging infringement
against someone who is CLEARLY not infringing according to the AHRA. This
could be considered harassment, and cause undo stress to the "alleged
`(3) CONTENTS OF SUBPOENA- The subpoena shall authorize and order the
service provider receiving the notification and the subpoena to
expeditiously disclose to the copyright owner or person authorized by the
copyright owner information sufficient to identify the alleged infringer
of the material described in the notification to the extent such
information is available to the service provider.
***(was the material properly noted in the notification as per the
DMCA? The DMCA agent, for I believe it was Verizon, last year told me that
many notices get put aside and a large percentage of people accused do not
counter notify. In fact, almost no one counters.)
While the RIAA is attempting to use the DMCA in this way, they dont stop
here. Recently, in the "Usher incident", RIAA attempted to use the DMCA in
a notification to the college. The files there were not infringing and later
the RIAA blamed the event on a temp. However, Matt S., spent time looking
for the alleged infringing material. According to the DMCA, doesnt the
notification need to be more specific? Take for example the RemarQ case.
Wasn't proper notification a major issue in that case?!***
The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) might work to protect users from
threats of RIAA lawsuits. The RIAA is using the DMCA, although I believe
the DMCA is not relevant here.
The RIAA suing users seems flawed in so many ways,
1. Do you sue your customers?
2. The AHRA, or audio home recording act, gives immunity from lawsuits
to users who are copying or recording for non commerical purposes. A
computer is NOT a device specifically designed to store or record audio.
Unless of course, someone does specifically design their computer for that
purpose, I suppose that is possible.
(for more info pls see my essay about the issue :
Soundbyting.com, a former active RIAA site, apparently replied in an
email, the following information to "Clarify the Legality of Home Audio
Recording" to minidisc.org:
"As long as the copying is done for
noncommericial use, the AHRA gives consumers immunity from suit for all
analog music copying, and for digital music copying with AHRA covered
Also, allegedly written by soundbyting rep, "It is important to note
that the AHRA does not say that such copying is lawful; it simply provides
an immunity from suit."
Well, if users are immune from lawsuits, then, why does the RIAA sue
or threaten to sue people downloading music? I believe that the only
losers are the ones who settle!