 kadarPremium,ExMod 2001-02
join:0000-00-00 | Curious I'm curious whether the “making available” point was dropped due to the Judge Kozinski mess.
For those that don't know. Judge Kozinski is a 9th circuit Federal Judge that was presiding over a pornography case. It was found that he himself had a "private" collection of porn available at his website. He also had mp3's available that were linked from some mp3 search sites.
(Google: Kozinski mp3)
So, is the RIAA dropping this line of prosecution because they do not wish to prosecute a Federal Judge?
--
The Revolutionary War was fought over a 14% tax, what % are you paying now? |
|
|
|
| said by kadar:I'm curious whether the “making available” point was dropped due to the Judge Kozinski mess. For those that don't know. Judge Kozinski is a 9th circuit Federal Judge that was presiding over a pornography case. It was found that he himself had a "private" collection of porn available at his website. He also had mp3's available that were linked from some mp3 search sites. (Google: Kozinski mp3) So, is the RIAA dropping this line of prosecution because they do not wish to prosecute a Federal Judge? I really doubt that is what is happening. There was a recent court decision calling in to question the "making available" argument. It was also posited by the judge that the RIAA downloading the file themselves MAY not constitute a violation because they weren't an "unauthorized" downloader. I think they are just looking for a better case to pursue and dropped the ones that call in to question their legal strategy.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to kadar
but i wonder what makes the RIAA an Authorized downloader then. because the artist and/or their label would have to give permission, otherwise the RIAA is no different then someone else downloading.
course im sure the contracts for RIAA membership probally cover this with legalese bullshit. "the RIAA shall have full and unlimited access to media from its member corporations" or something.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Actually, it looks like they're just shopping around for a better judge to present the case before since they just refiled the same case against the same person in a different court ( »news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid···/1156218 ).
Even for the RIAA, this is low. They saw that the case wasn't going their way so they dropped it and tried to start all over again without telling the new judge about the previous case. Either the RIAA's lawyers are: A) incompetent enough to forget to notify a judge about a prior (and still ongoing) case against the same person with the same charges or B) malicious enough to try to get a "do over" when a case doesn't go their way. In either case, some censure or disbarment charges should be in order as this is a serious abuse of the court system.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
 elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:but i wonder what makes the RIAA an Authorized downloader then. because the artist and/or their label would have to give permission, otherwise the RIAA is no different then someone else downloading. course im sure the contracts for RIAA membership probally cover this with legalese bullshit. "the RIAA shall have full and unlimited access to media from its member corporations" or something. well it goes like this
if the RIAA is authorized to sue and collect winnings of suits and settlements then they own the rights in to the music in some way
if didnt have the rights
then they wouldnt be legally able to file suit or collect settlements |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:but i wonder what makes the RIAA an Authorized downloader then. The RIAA are acting as agents for the copyright holders, and they have been giving explicit permission by those holders (the record labels, probably) to undertake these activities. |
|
