AfterDawn: News

Verizon lost its appeal against RIAA

A U.S. district court upheld the earlier ruling and said that Verizon Communications must give up the identity of its Internet subscriber, who is accused of swapping music files on the Net. The company now has 14 days to disclose the identity, unless an appeals court puts the decision on hold again.

"Verizon cannot demonstrate that it has a substantial likelihood of prevailing...and has not shown that it will be irreparably harmed if a stay pending appeal is not granted," Judge John Bates wrote in his decision. According to him the DMCA law used by RIAA is not unconstitutional.



RIAA was obviously delighted about the ruling.

"Today's decision makes clear that these individuals cannot rely on their (Internet service providers) to shield them from accountability," Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, said. "If users of pirate peer-to-peer sites don't want to be identified, they should not break the law by illegally distributing music."

Verizon still sees that the decision will harm the rights and security of their customers, and will appeal again.

Source:
News.com


Written by: Jari Ketola @ 25 Apr 2003 6:47

• Previous article

• 321 Studios hearing postponed

• Next article

• Streamcast (Grokster, Morpheus) victorious in court

• 10 comments

• Ne007

  Well...if everyone shares a hundred or so music files, then what are they going to do? Take everyone to court? Lol....stupid SOB's.
  
  It's about time the record companies start waking up to the fact that people aren't going to line their pockets anymore. At least I'm not stupid enough to do it.
  
  As for the artists....I don't believe that you deserve millions of dollars either....I'll give you 5 cents for a song if you want it.

  25.4.2003 11:26 #1

• Ghostdog

  I thinks it´s more the record companies filling their pockets, not the artists.
  
  
  Soon the political world will be controlled by corporations and organizations seeking their own interest. No, I´m not joking.

  25.4.2003 12:57 #2

• seanbyrne

  An artist typically gets only a few cents overall per album sold meaning that most of the album cost is being absorbed somewhere else. This basically means that if an artist becomes a multi-millionaire on selling albums, then think of how much money the music industry had earned from that artist.
  
  Surely, if an artist can become rich on earning a few cents per albums, then the industry can do the same with the same few cents as well as the few cents earned by the music shop.
  
  For example: if the artist earned 50 cents per album (likely less at present), the music industry earned another 50 cents (obviously more at present), 50 cents for physically producing the CD/jewel case (current cost at time of checking) and the shop earned another 50 cents profit on the CD (guessing). This makes the CD 2 Euro. Add another 21% VAT (Irish VAT), bringing it up to 2.42 Euro. A lot cheaper than the present CD cost... If this were the CD cost, they would likely be selling over 10x the current sale.

  26.4.2003 03:18 #3

• Ghostdog

  In my opinion the record company should get paid less than the artist. Of course the "salery" would exclude production and marketing costs. But overall, it´s the artist who should get paid, since it´s he/her/them who make the music happen.

  26.4.2003 04:00 #4

• VICMAKEY

  wait ....now that the grokster/kazza people won and have proved file sharing is legal does verizion need to identify now?
  must the ria prove the customer used an illegal tool ?

  26.4.2003 17:59 #5

• VICMAKEY

  http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/4022.cfm

  26.4.2003 18:01 #6

• procode

  If the about figures are at all representative then, in many ways, the production companies are prostituting the artists.

  28.4.2003 14:56 #7

• maryjayne

  I was recently debating over upgrading to either DSL or Cable connection, and it seems the RIAA is attacking the phone companies first. I guess I know now which way is safest to go. If the RIAA continues in this manner, then a lot more people who use P2P networks will probably switch as well. With the wonderful inventions called cell phones, a person could even cancel their phone service all together.
  
  Doesnt the RIAA understand that in trying to protect their business they are hurting another?
  
  Granted I have had nothing but complaints about Verizon's service. In fact, if I had a choice of a different phone provider instead of Verizon, then I would instantly switch even if it meant doubling my phone bill. But in this manner I fully support Verizon.
  

  Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
  - Benjamin Franklin
  
  Time is never wasted when you are wasted all the time.

  29.4.2003 16:08 #8

• zgatorz

  Artists get virtually nothing from album sales....thay make all their money off merchandising and concerts.
  
  It's the RIAA that makes all the money...this is all about them, not the artists

  27.6.2003 15:04 #9

• PeteBull

  As a professional in the computer business, share/exchange some of your hard drive space with somebody overseas, away from the reach of the RIAA. They cannot summon to court a foreign country yet!
  Also check out the 1896 Sherman Anti-Trust Act. There are some grounds for us users against them!
  What is already on the internet is "de facto" public domain !!!

  22.7.2003 15:14 #10