wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL
| reply to technick
Re: Will this idiocy cease?
Maybe you do not understand mine - it just means that I have to do more reading on the subject, find the same motives and the same people involved. It's not really anything new.
Not that I am an enemy of the RIAA, (Being that I have to toe a very fine and wary line with them to maintain operation of my radio network) I just cannot personally condone the methodology that they are using to make sure that the "bills are paid."
At $750 - $15k or more per song found to be illegally obtained - they are simply ruining people. They (RIAA) are ruining their image, and they are ruining any further chances they may have down the road for implementing a business model that would be pleasing to all. Let alone the impact that is is having on file sharing. I bet you all, dollars to doughnuts that people are still trading out of spite.
In a nation of laws and legislature that has grown too far out of hand in the first place, this is just the feather in the cap - the straw that breaks the camel's back. RIAA has the funds and the political clout to keep on doing what it is that it is doing, and to buy more laws as it seems fit to keep encroaching, ultimately - into the private residence.
QUOTE:
The DMCA's powers go far beyond those of the typical subpoena, however. No judge has to sign off on the order - it only requires the stamp of a clerk of the court. Nor does a copyright holder have to prove that copyright infringement has occurred. The holder only has to allege infringement.
Emphasis in the above quote is mine alone -
What's to keep this from being a precedant that would allow other *organizations and associations* (Not agencies) to rally together and lobby to make other laws and legislature that would ingress into daily life?
Now with that to think upon for a while, I invite you to hand over some packets of ketchup while I am idling in your drive-thru restaurants' window of enlightenment...
--
Nothwest Arkansas' ONLY all Techno Radio Webcast, powered by SBC DSL! |
|
rzaruba
join:2000-08-04
| See below
[text was edited by author 2003-07-30 16:49:23] |
|
rzaruba
join:2000-08-04
|  reply to wolfox
"No judge has to sign off on the order - it only requires the stamp of a clerk of the court. Nor does a copyright holder have to prove that copyright infringement has occurred. The holder only has to allege infringement."
Thank you for trumpeting your ignorance.
A subpoena is a command for something. It requires no probable cause.
It is normally stamped with the clerk's name and then sealed.
IN only one case in 27 years did we get a USDJ to sign a subpoena, and that was because we knew in advance that the recipient would balk and we were prepared to have her brought into the court by Deputy Marshals.
So what else is new? |
|
wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL
| Well, now I know.  And if this forum is not a place of learning, then what is it for? I was lead to believe not only by other posters here, but articles in the past, that a Judge's signature was to be obtained for a subpoena to be legitimate. Also, the DMCA/RIAA's procedures seemed to be cast in a light that it got ruling passed into legislature that suspended that requirement for a signature.
Thank you for at least illuminating that fallacy.
--
Nothwest Arkansas' ONLY all Techno Radio Webcast, powered by SBC DSL! |
|
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to rzaruba
wolfox don't so easily give in to claims here.
There are lawyerly games being played.
A subpoena may not require probable cause.
The fact remains that it is generally agreed that the dmca eased and expedited subpoena procedures in order to make it easier for copyright holders. In this wolfox is correct, though I'm sure rzaruba will play jesuitical games with his words for effect. |
|
