yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Lawsuits aren't about legal requirements
It makes for good reading, but the fact of the matter is whether or not there is a law dictating this is immaterial to a civil lawsuit. The recording industry association in Ireland doesn't need a criminal indictment to pursue monetary damages, they only must demonstrate that a reasonable duty due to the copyright holder was breached. If they can convince a jury (or whatever Ireland uses) that ISPs should be protecting copyright, then they can collect damages.
--
Have more fun with your GPS.
Geocaching.com |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| I'm no lawyer but...
...why should one part tell another party what to do with their private property?
Would this not be the equivalent the Telcom telling Sony to open up all of its catalogues for free? They can say what they want but unless they can prove that the carrieir is complicit (i.e. conspiring to distibute) then they have a snowballs chance in hell of getting this through.
Its the eqivalent of the postal service being held accountable for drug trafficking because drugs are sent in the mail. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| No, because the third-party has no standing with respect to the copyright. What is being asserted here is that the ISPs are allowing copyright infringement to occur on their networks, and are thus complicit in those acts of infringement. Say what you will about the validity of such claims, but the copyright holder is within their rights to assert that they are owed a duty to any entity that handles their product. They just have to prove it in court.
--
Have more fun with your GPS.
Geocaching.com |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Does Ireland have any shield laws like the US does for ISP's? |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH | No idea, but this seems to suggest that they do not. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to yock
Can the RIAA sue themselves for being complicit in acts of copyright infringement? Afterall, their product is far too easily copied/recorded in the present format being distributed. They are not taking adequate steps to lock down their own product, and therefore should be held liable for such infringements. Suing themselves seems no sillier than any of their other actions in this battle over piracy. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Ans I suppose it's not the homeowner's fault that you robbed them considering they left their front door unlocked?
Give me a break...
--
Have more fun with your GPS.
Geocaching.com |
|
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| reply to yock
said by yock  :No idea, but this seems to suggest that they do not. Not that it much matters. They'd try to sue anyway just to pose a threat to the ISP.
The real fact still remains if there is no law requiring ISPs to implement the filters then there is no requirement, regardless of the copyright holders position.
Thus the need to take it up in court, and obviously the one ISP doesn't think they'd win, so they cave and settle.
Meanwhile the others have grown a pair and stood up to the industry's threats. Of course now that one has agreed, it puts the others in a position to have to do the same, so glad they're standing ground.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. |
|
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| reply to yock
said by yock :Ans I suppose it's not the homeowner's fault that you robbed them considering they left their front door unlocked? Give me a break... I believe there was an EU reg being discussed whereby a company whos data is compromised might be liable for such a breach.
Fun stuff.
And, jmn1207, trying to "lock down" their product won't help. In fact it'll likely make piracy worse. DRM doesn't work, we've seen it over & over.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| A company that retains private customer information does have a duty to protect it at any cost. If they cannot protect it, they shouldnt' retain it. The difference here is that the stolen information doesn't belong to them, but their customers. A company that doesn't protect their proprietary information isn't absolving a thief of their criminal act. The criminal still took something they knew didn't belong to them.
--
Have more fun with your GPS.
Geocaching.com |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| So this is a double edged sword. The ISP needs to protect their customers information from the RIAA, and the RIAA in turn sues for not turining over the info?
Which is has priority? Customer info or Conglomerate who is more important in the eyes of the law? |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to yock
said by yock :Ans I suppose it's not the homeowner's fault that you robbed them considering they left their front door unlocked? Give me a break... More similar is that the homeowner wouldn't be sued by the RIAA if someone stole a CD out of their home and made copies of it.
I suppose we should be able to sue the US Post Office if someone opens a mailbox and makes copies and distributes the contents from a Consumer Reports magazine?
Apparently we do not agree on this issue, and I strongly feel that a better solution needs to be devised. It's is far too impractical to expect our ISP's to be net nannies, in the same manner that we should not expect the US Post Office to provide locked mailboxes and all of the associated costs and resources that would be necessary for such a plan. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to backness
Hey, I'm not defending the lawsuit, simply pointing out that civil damages don't require criminal statutes. The failure here is whomever allowed the recording industry association to win, either by judgment or settlement.
--
Have more fun with your GPS.
Geocaching.com |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to GlobalMind
said by GlobalMind :Thus the need to take it up in court, and obviously the one ISP doesn't think they'd win, so they cave and settle. I don't think it is a case of not thinking they would win, but thinking that even a victory would still be costly; as King Pyhrrus found when he beat the Roman army in battle.
The entertainment industry has mountains of money to throw at this battle ...
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | reply to yock
Still the civil aggreement with the existing ISP does not equal to precedence. This will be uphill all the way. |
|
Sal573890
@utoronto.ca
| reply to yock
said by yock :No, because the third-party has no standing with respect to the copyright. What is being asserted here is that the ISPs are allowing copyright infringement to occur on their networks, and are thus complicit in those acts of infringement. Say what you will about the validity of such claims, but the copyright holder is within their rights to assert that they are owed a duty to any entity that handles their product. They just have to prove it in court. Same could be said about UPS or postal system...
Copyright infringement items are shipped all day long through these means, but I doubt you would ever see anyone try and take the government on with this thinking. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| i agree with the anon, an ISP is no different at all then UPS. if i ship you a case of copies of all my DVDs via UPS i have done the same thing as if you downloaded them.
however the RIAA/MPAA vision is one in which they think comcast should have prevented my upload.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH | reply to Sal573890
Which is why this shouldn't get legs. I'm not defending their argument, only their standing to bring it.
--
Have more fun with your GPS.
Geocaching.com |
|
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS :said by GlobalMind :Thus the need to take it up in court, and obviously the one ISP doesn't think they'd win, so they cave and settle. I don't think it is a case of not thinking they would win, but thinking that even a victory would still be costly; as King Pyhrrus found when he beat the Roman army in battle. The entertainment industry has mountains of money to throw at this battle ... Ok, I'd about call that "same difference." It depends on the size of the ISP in question.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. |
|
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| reply to yock
said by yock :A company that retains private customer information does have a duty to protect it at any cost. If they cannot protect it, they shouldnt' retain it. Agreed. However making it a legal requirement which calls for harsh penalties has some interesting effects and gives thieves even more reason to do what they want.
said by yock :The difference here is that the stolen information doesn't belong to them, but their customers. A company that doesn't protect their proprietary information isn't absolving a thief of their criminal act. The criminal still took something they knew didn't belong to them. I don't think I said the act of not protecting data absolves a law breaker from responsibility.
Of course your statement's going down that thin line of equating copyright infringement to theft, which it very clearly, and legally, is not. 
The issue here too is that the industry is not a law enforcement agency, as much as they'd like to be. No FBI-esque jackets will change that fact. It's the same thing as that sham Business Software Alliance that thinks it is equal to law enforcement.
Those orgs cannot on their own force the ISP to divulge any information they're not required to by law.
Unless there is a court order in place to force it, the industry loses, which is why they want to sue and set precedent.
It might make them feel good and pose a bit more but it won't stop the infringement.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. |
|
