- Re: Comcast Rolls Over to RIAA Subpoenas
- Posted by Larry on July 25th, 2003
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:42:56 GMT, "David C. Barber"
<david@NOSPAMdbarber.com> wrote:
College and MIT, in honor of the Boston Tea Party and the Model
Railroad Club hackers I suppose, REFUSED to accept the subpoenas from
the RIAA lawyers because they were from more than the required 100
miles jurisdiction, having been issued by judges in DC...
Way ta go MIT!!
Larry W4CSC
"No, NO, Mr Spock! I said beam me down a WRENCH,
not a WENCH! KIRK OUT!"
- Posted by John Navas on July 25th, 2003
[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <omOdnb4VYfwpEL2iXTWJjQ@comcast.com> on Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:53:55 -0400, "o
u t e n d" <n o n e @ n o n e . c o m> wrote:
This was more a matter of public apathy than money -- there were a few of us
working to oppose the DMCA, but too few. Did you get involved? If not, then
you really can't complain.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
- Posted by Pat on July 30th, 2003
"o u t e n d" <n o n e @ n o n e . c o m> wrote in message
news
mOdnb4VYfwpEL2iXTWJjQ@comcast.com...
The obvious answer's that your tax dollars are controlled by the RIAA's
political donations. If this approach fails, they'll can always get the DOJ
to set up some sort of enforcement agency and do their dirty work using tax
money instead.
The latest Congressional plan is to make the "sharing" of even one file a
felony carrying a five year sentence. You can copy and redistribute almost
anything else and normally not see jail, just cease and desist orders and
monetary damages. These guys are loony.
- Posted by Larry on July 30th, 2003
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:09:29 GMT, "Pat" <kasar@hotmail.com> wrote:
overpriced media is way down and keeps dropping as they stupidly
persue these swappers. Their customers WERE the very swapper kids
they are pissing off. The don't-buy-music boycotts have already
started on the college campus and is spreading into the high school.
Teaching RIAA a lesson is easy if you use your wallet and keep it
closed. Music is nice, but is a luxury item anyone can live without
buying. So, just stop buying their product and they'll have to change
their anti-consumer attitudes. Voting against people like Sen
Hollings of my state (I do my part, there) also sends a message to
errant politicians who soon forget who put them there. We'll soon be
rid of him in the next election and RIAA will have to find another
politician to bribe. They come cheap, though, by music industry money
standards.
Larry W4CSC
"No, NO, Mr Spock! I said beam me down a WRENCH,
not a WENCH! KIRK OUT!"
- Posted by Tim Smith on August 1st, 2003
In article <omOdnb4VYfwpEL2iXTWJjQ@comcast.com>, o u t e n d wrote:
And this is significant how? All throwing a judge into the loop would do is
make more work for the courts, without changing the outcome one bit.
--
Evidence Eliminator is worthless: www.evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith
- Posted by John Navas on August 1st, 2003
[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <Fn6dnQA6PPnHq7eiXTWJkg@speakeasy.net> on Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:43:54 -0500,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On the contrary -- it should ensure that any such subpoenas were actually
warranted based on some real evidence.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
- Posted by John Navas on August 1st, 2003
[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <MImdnflCBp8PPLeiXTWJkw@speakeasy.net> on Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:21:22 -0500,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
If it wouldn't change the outcome, then why did the RIAA push so hard for this
provision?
Assuming a responsible judge, a subpoena would issue only on good cause; i.e.,
real evidence, not just whatever the RIAA might think.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
- Posted by DANIEL MARX on August 1st, 2003
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
They would most likely file lawsuits on the people sharing the most files. For example,
if they had a choice of suing a person sharing 1000 files, and a person sharing 100 files,
they would go after the guy with 1000 files. Now, however, they can find out, *before* they
file the lawsuit, that the guy with 1000 files is a rich kid whose parents will pay his legal
bills and the guy with 100 files is a working class kid who can barely afford college, and sue
him. So, people will be treated differently based on how much money they have, which I think is
fundamentally unjust. There is also the larger problem of allowing private companies, not subject
to public scrutiny, to issue subpoenas.
