 |
 | 
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY |  Re: Good job for charter
| |
|
| | 
not quite right
I'm not cool enough to be a Mac person
join:2001-06-23
Puyallup, WA | Re: Good job for charter | |
|
| | | 
DenverDialup
join:2003-06-06
Littleton, CO
clubs: | Re: Good job for charter Comcast? "Do the RIGHT THING?" *falls on the floor in bursts of uncontrolled laughter* | |
|
| | 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | You forgot RCN. | |
|
| | 
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL | And the Bell's | |
|
| | | toddinpal
join:2002-09-18
Palatine, IL
| Re: Good job for charter said by Boogeyman  :
And the Bell's
Really? SBC is the largest of the Bell's I believe. | |
|
| | | | 
lostnthwoods
join:2001-12-03
Arcadia, OK | Re: Good job for charter SBC is Bell. Since they were split into regional telcos they all came back together under the SBC umbrella as one giant smiley face ;o/. What Bell wants Bell will eventually get. I'm proud of them for standing up to riaa. | |
|
| | | | | mrs213
join:2002-05-25
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Good job for charter SBC is not Bell. (SBC + Verizon + BellSouth + Qwest) ~= Ma Bell.
And Verizon is the largest RBOC in the country. | |
|
| | | | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: Good job for charter Sorry to pick hairs but Qwest isn't Bell. They are a CLEC.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
|
| | | | | | | cltguy
join:2002-01-12
Pineville, NC | Re: Good job for charter SR Fireside....
Qwest was until they took over US West .... | |
|
| | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: Good job for charter Qwest is, today, a CLEC. I can't say about them in the past but that's what they are now. They don't hold any RBOC power or influence and are regarded as competitors to Bell.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
|
| | | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL | I was refering to PacificBell, BellAtlantic, SouthwesternBell, Bellsouth and whatever other Bells there might be.
--
what doesn't this button do? | |
|
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| said by mrchris :
All we need is Comcast, Adelphia, Cox, Roadrunner and Cablevision to join the fight
Has there been any subpoenas or suits filed with any Roadrunner users? I am really wondering about this because I haven't heard of any. Would be interesting to know if Time/Warner is looking the other way in regards to their own customers.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
|
| | | aaccboi
join:2003-09-29
Edgewater, MD | Re: Good job for charter RoadRunner will not join the fight due to them being owned by AOL TIME WARNER one of the major backers of RIAA | |
|
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | Re: Good job for charter Actually I meant the other way around. Are there any Roadrunner customers that are being sued by the RIAA?
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
|
| | | | | cltguy
join:2002-01-12
Pineville, NC | Re: Good job for charter Yes.. A friend of a friend of mine in Raleigh got a summons.. a Road runner customer... had quite a large cache of mp3's from what I heard.... all shared on Kazza. | |
|
| | 
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs: | Then countersuit the RIAA into oblivion. Oh for Bob's sake!
--
MediaXPeer | |
|
| 
ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
clubs: | Charter seems to be stepping up in the world....Can Cox, and Comcast be far behind, probably since they seem to be bought and paid for all ready.... | |
|
| |
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| YES!!!!! I love you SBC!!! I love you Verizon (jump back into the fold now and STAND w/SBC), and I love you Charter for joining the stand!
If you three (and more) stand together, RIAA will be in a legal fray for years, or possibly drop it....
SBC-Verizon-Charter --YES!!!!!
--
If you have to ask what EFNET is, you don't need broadband  | |
|
| |
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: YES!!!!! said by aliasrlz :
You know what.. If these ISPs would just make it an internal rule to delete logs/records of IPs after so many months, the RIAA would have NOTHING. The ISPs can cite that it is a undue burden & expense to keep & maintain these logs, and if the RIAA wants to get individual identify info, they need to follow "existing" legal means and costs to get this info.
Then, whatever IP the RIAA grabs from Kazaa or Morpheus would have changed a zillion times by the time they request the log, which would have since been deleted.
Simple new internal memo within SBC/Verizon/Charter and other ISPs about deleting logs after XX months is all that is necessary.... with justifiable reason to do so.
Problem with this approach is that the RIAA would claim destruction of evidence and the ISP's would be in worse trouble than before. | |
|
| | |
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| Re: YES!!!!! said by moonpuppy :
said by aliasrlz :
You know what.. If these ISPs would just make it an internal rule to delete logs/records of IPs after so many months, the RIAA would have NOTHING. The ISPs can cite that it is a undue burden & expense to keep & maintain these logs, and if the RIAA wants to get individual identify info, they need to follow "existing" legal means and costs to get this info.
Then, whatever IP the RIAA grabs from Kazaa or Morpheus would have changed a zillion times by the time they request the log, which would have since been deleted.
Simple new internal memo within SBC/Verizon/Charter and other ISPs about deleting logs after XX months is all that is necessary.... with justifiable reason to do so.
Problem with this approach is that the RIAA would claim destruction of evidence and the ISP's would be in worse trouble than before.
It is not evidence until there is a crime. You need concensus + law of the crime committed first, then gather the evidence...
Otherwise, property anywhere at anytime (even in your house) can be considered evidence for a crime not yet committed or hasn't been deemed a crime, lol!
So, DELETE the logs (my advice)...for the reasons of undue burden & expense on ISP Providers... end of story.
--
If you have to ask what EFNET is, you don't need broadband | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| Re: YES!!!!! said by Eat Me :
It may not be that simple. Logs are useful for plenty of other things. If the ISP has a financial institution or the US Government as a customer, and they don't keep logs, and some huge incident happens, they're likely to lose business.
Consumers aren't their greatest source of revenue.
Well, like any business, companies are not forced to keep logs (or any other paperwork) indefinitely. There is a statute of limitations. My company dumps stuff older than 3 years, and this is stuff that could be very important to a consumer (life threatening) should a lawsuit come up. ISP logs are far less important, particularly IP logs, so I would assume 3 yr statute is even overkill for non-life threatening materials. Again, JMHO.
--
If you have to ask what EFNET is, you don't need broadband | |
|
| | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: YES!!!!! Telecommunication companies are required to keep all logs/customer data for a minimum of 7 years. Most of the major player ISPs (Verizon, SBC, etc...) are telecommunication companies.
And as pointed out above, all government contracts require a company to keep records for a minimum of 7 years. If anything is deleted, the company is at risk for losing that government contract.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
| | | | | | |
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| Re: YES!!!!! said by achuchma :
Telecommunication companies are required to keep all logs/customer data for a minimum of 7 years. Most of the major player ISPs (Verizon, SBC, etc...) are telecommunication companies.
And as pointed out above, all government contracts require a company to keep records for a minimum of 7 years. If anything is deleted, the company is at risk for losing that government contract.
7? ick....What contract would SBC and Verizon have with the government? Isn't that a conflict of interest in the business market?
--
If you have to ask what EFNET is, you don't need broadband | |
|
| | | | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: YES!!!!! said by =aliasrlz:
7? ick....What contract would SBC and Verizon have with the government? Isn't that a conflict of interest in the business market?
Actually, SBC and Verizon do a lot of government business. Post offices, passport offices, and many other government offices need dial tone and data services.
We do a good deal of state and federal business too. That is actually one of the divisions I work in.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: YES!!!!! How is it a conflict of interest?
Government (state and federal) offices need telecommunications services, and last I checked, there was no "National Federal" telephone company.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| Re: YES!!!!! said by achuchma :
How is it a conflict of interest?
Government (state and federal) offices need telecommunications services, and last I checked, there was no "National Federal" telephone company.
Well, let's see....SBC (or someone else) does the telecommunications for all government offices, and SBC comes up against Joe Smoe Telecom in any litigation that requires government input/decision-making - Hmmmmmmm, who will the government side with?
Don't get me wrong, I am happy about the SBC/Verizon/Charter stance on the RIAA issue, just was hoping to find a way to make their fight easier against the RIAA (by ditching customer IP logs).....and unfortunately, because they are in bed with the government, guess I can't.
--
If you have to ask what EFNET is, you don't need broadband | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: YES!!!!! said by aliasrlz :
Well, let's see....SBC (or someone else) does the telecommunications for all government offices, and SBC comes up against Joe Smoe Telecom in any litigation that requires government input/decision-making - Hmmmmmmm, who will the government side with?
I can't see that happening. SBC is a service provider and not much else. If something like that happened and SBC decided to imply some threat they would be dropped as a provider and the government would go with someone else for these services. There is absolutely no incentive for the government to cowtow to any company that merely supplies telecommunication services when competitors would do anything for the contract. SBC needs the government contracts more than the government needs SBC. Simple as that.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| Re: YES!!!!! Boy are you naive, and I'm sure our government and every company employed by them are absolutely on the upright - legally, ethically, morally, etc. And, none of them are remotely politically corrupt, none...ever.
--
If you have to ask what EFNET is, you don't need broadband | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: YES!!!!! It's got nothing to do with that. Your theory is based on the government needing SBC to take care of their telecommunications services and nobody else. SBC doesn't hold a monopoly over their services so that's not going to be the case. If for some reason SBC needed the government to grease the wheels of legislation in their favor they certainly won't risk losing some of their biggest contracts. That's not going to happen. Let's try this little role play example:
SBC - "I would like you to support our policy on X so that we can get X"
Government Official - "Why should we?"
SBC - "Because if you don't we'll make a mess of your telephony and Internet connections."
Government Official - "You do that and we'll use another carrier."
End of story. SBC losses a fat client and gets no government pull. Now corrupt politicians you mentioned? Sure there are, but SBC isn't going to get anywhere this way. That's why they pay the big lobby money and layer congressman after congressman's pockets with "campaign contributions." But to say SBC has power over government because they have a contract with them is missing the mark.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com | |
|
| | | | | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| said by aliasrlz:
SBC (or someone else) does the telecommunications for all government offices, and SBC comes up against Joe Smoe Telecom in any litigation that requires government input/decision-making - Hmmmmmmm, who will the government side with?.....and unfortunately, because they are in bed with the government, guess I can't.
Just because a telecom company provides service to a government agency, it does not mean that they are "in bed" with the government.
From reading your posts, I can see that you do not understand how Government agencies bid for telecom services, so I will give you a run down.
The federal government does not have one contract with a telecom provider. They have a bunch of small contracts with many different providers, and most often multiple providers on one contract/service.
Let's say the White House needs Centrex service...The White House will draft an RFP (or RFI) that just requests Centrex service. The RFP/RFI is released to the public, in which most telecom companies will bid on that RFP/RFI.
That RFP/RFI will have a bunch of requirements from the type of service they need, how they want their bill formatted, all the way down to how the network will route calls.
The White House will then look at all the bids they got on that RFP/RFI, and award to the cheapest bidder that meets all their requirements.
Now, three months down the road the White House needs some OC-3's...They will not automatically award the service to the winner of the Centrex contract, they will put out a whole new bid, in which the process begins again.
It is very common to have federal and state agencies that have each of their different services with different service providers.
Also, back to the White House example...Just because the White House has their Centrex service with MCI, the State Department will have submitted their own bid for their Centrex service, which may be with SBC.
Basically, each different federal agency has their own contracts with different companies, often different locations of each agency has their own contract.
So, just because SBC has federal government contracts, it does not mean that they are the sole provider of telecom services for the entire federal system. They are just a small part of the multitude of providers that service the federal government.
I hope I cleared this up for you. I think you were a little unclear on how the whole process worked.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
| | | | | | | 
BUCKY1077
Premium
join:2002-09-30
Altoona, PA | sure don't seem fair the whitehouse,the congress,ect have always and still do hide,shred,consil,evidenance | |
|
| | | | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: YES!!!!! said by BUCKY1077:
sure don't seem fair the whitehouse,the congress,ect have always and still do hide,shred,consil,evidenance
I agree to a point with you on your comment.
While I think the government tends to classify things that the public should know about, they do not in the name of "National Security", there are topics that I truly believe could cause a risk to national security if released.
Of course, telecom services are not "national security" providers, so we need to be accountable for everything for as far as necessary.
Prime example is the routing issue MCI is being accused with. Most of the examples AT&T and SBC came up with were over a decade old. Now, if we did not retain our records, MCi would not be able to prove their innocence or admit their guilt (at the time, MCI has yet to find any records that indicate that we improperly routed calls).
Basically, if we went to the feds and said, "Your honor, we can not prove that we did or did not route calls improperly because we only retain records for seven years" chances are we would be determined guilty.
Now, I am not saying that we did not or that we did route calls improperly, that's up for the auditors and judges to decide. I was just using this issue as a prime example of how it is important that we retain our records for as long as we can.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
| | | | 
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil | Hey, say hi to Fastow and the rest of the Enron folks for me... 
--
SBC DSL Tech Support. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil
| Re: YES!!!!! said by aliasrlz :
I have no clue what you are implying.. none. I"m talking about doing something that the law allows........not screwing millions of investors, analysts, and the SEC.
My point exactly. Enron and Arthur Andersen also thought the law allowed them to shred documents, and we all know how that ended up.
--
SBC DSL Tech Support. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | Alky
join:2001-08-12
Cleveland, OH | Absolutely. What he said. | |
|
| | 
Aggie Dan
Stop... Reverse That.
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Frisco, TX
clubs:
| said by aliasrlz :
You know what.. If these ISPs would just make it an internal rule to delete logs/records of IPs after so many months, the RIAA would have NOTHING.
No logs? What about tracking down other illegal activity?
When the FBI calls up and says they need information, saying, "Um, we deleted those records," isn't going to go over very well.
When a federal government agency has called to have us identify someone I'm more than happy to comply. Granted, in my case, that has meant directing them to the correct phone number. But, when data was in disarray from a recent (at the time) migration, I couldn't have queried that old database (which I know like the back of my hand) faster.
--
Note : The statements made by myself are my own and not the opinions of my employer or of my coworkers. 10.527 GHz Crunching Power | The Ryan Foundation for MPS Children | |
|
| | |
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| Re: YES!!!!! Give me break! You expect Companies to keep logs on millions of people everywhere for anything (DSL , phone, etc) for INDEFINITE periods of time? Just in case "some" out of millions might commit a crime?
Please... there is a statue of limitations, otherwise my company would not be able to delete stuff after 3 years. The provisions and restrictions of the statue, however, I am not familiar with. I"m sure the ISP Legal Minds can determine what is acceptable and not acceptable by legal standards.
--
If you have to ask what EFNET is, you don't need broadband | |
|
| | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: YES!!!!! said by aliasrlz:
Give me break! You expect Companies to keep logs on millions of people everywhere for anything (DSL , phone, etc) for INDEFINITE periods of time?
Um...yes...
I do not know what business you are in, but I can access telephone logs for Customers as far back as 1983 via data feed. Anything older needs to be ordered, but it is available on paper.
Case in point, these logs are very important for many other reasons, and we are often required to pull different logs from years back.
I can see your point, however, since a company can be sued for a multitude of reasons for up to seven, or more years in advance, most companies will save as much data as they can.
While you company may destroy records, dollars to donuts that data is in digital format somewhere, or stored with a document storage company. Your company probably has a contract with Iron Mountain, one of the nation's largest document storage companies.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
| | |
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| said by Aggie Dan :
When a federal government agency has called to have us identify someone I'm more than happy to comply. Granted, in my case, that has meant directing them to the correct phone number. But, when data was in disarray from a recent (at the time) migration, I couldn't have queried that old database (which I know like the back of my hand) faster.
Being that you work for Verizon, and stated, "When a government agency has called to identify someone, I'm more than happy to comply", scares the bejesus out of many of us. You require no paperwork? No legal authorization? No identification from the person who called? No court order? ...from that person to give up your customers' identity????
Is that EVEN LEGAL to do? As a Verizon Rep, look at your EXACT statement - You could be giving up a person's information to any Tom, Dick, Harold, or psycho......
Hope all Verizon employees are not so FREE with their customers' identities because someone called?
--
If you have to ask what EFNET is, you don't need broadband | |
|
| | 
SpitefulCrow
Insert Witty Tag Here
Premium
join:2003-06-04
Berkeley, CA | You assume IPs change that frequently on cable.
I've had my good old 24.44.224.xxx on OOL since I signed up over a year ago. | |
|
|
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil
| said by aliasrlz :
If you three (and more) stand together, RIAA will be in a legal fray for years, or possibly drop it....
on-Charter --YES!!!!!
Unlikely. This whole thing is not about protecting copyright owners, band members who have families to feet, etc. The RIAA's very existence is at stake here.
--
SBC DSL Tech Support. | |
|
| | |
| | |
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil
| Re: YES!!!!! said by aliasrlz :
...so, and your point? Most of us could careless about the greedy RIAA....
True. It's all about greed. My point is that the RIAA will fight until the very end, not just give up. They have no other business to fall back on.
--
SBC DSL Tech Support. | |
|
|
aliasrlz
Premium
join:2000-09-01
the world
| Like I said, some of you (at least 2) are very "naive", especially about politics..... and I don't need to write a dissertation on government + private business to explain that.....
Believe what you want.....end of story.
--
If you have to ask what EFNET is, you don't need broadband | |
|
| |
See 17 replies to this post |
|
| |
Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Packet8
| Coalition Coalition to fight terrorism RIAA.
That would be nice to see competitors joining together.
They should form coalition to put together their resources to destroy defeat RIAA.
--
We are the Borg! Resistance Is Futile! You Will Be Assimilated! | |
|
| |
Marilla
I Am My Own Arbiter
Premium
join:2002-12-06
Belpre, OH
| Yay, and stuff And here, good friends, we have an example of one way in which, even in the litigous bog of a world we live in today, big business can actually be a good thing - even if you think only to stand up to other big businesses!
Though I left Charter due to numerous issues to become a Verizon customer, I do applaud them on joining this fight. I don't condone illegal file sharing (If you don't want to pay the prices for the music, simple: Don't. but don't "steal" it), but I also don't condone the methods the RIAA has used. They could have made their 'examples' by other more due-process-involved means.
--
Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD - just use the right tool for the right job... end the OS Politics!
[text was edited by author 2003-10-04 14:36:12] | |
|
| 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Yay, and stuff "Litigious Bog" TM is a BroadbandReports.com trademark. Our subpoena will be in the mail shortly. This DMCA thing is FANTASTIC! We didn't even need a judge's authority to issue it! Life is so much easier without the hassle of due process and all those associated headaches! | |
|
statecop
Premium
join:2002-09-16
Beverly Hills, CA | Cool!
Good going charter!
Let them know you still have a set. | |
|
onliners450
Net Addicted, Period.
Premium
join:2002-12-19
Lebanon, CT
| Yeah Charter but... Well great for Charter but....They lied to me and others in our area.Look.This letter is simply NOT true and we aren't getting what it says we are. | |
|
|
See 16 replies to this post |
|
User0101
Premium
join:2002-12-12
S-ZZ9-PZA
clubs:
| Another 2 Cent Opinion Lets just hope that with the addition of a few more companies joining in litigation against the RIAA that "Big Brother" might just take notice.
There are always politicians looking to make waves and with elections coming in the future I would put money on us hearing about it in their campaign.
I remember it being used in regards to the ban on Internet Taxes.
/bleh
ItamaeChef | |
|
|
| |
Lord Pancake
join:2003-09-30
West Milton, OH | Ugh It would be great if Road Runner stood up and fought. But they have to offer shitty service instead... :-/ | |
|
ltt75
join:2001-01-22
Hollis, NH | & This might the first thing they have done right for their customers. | |
|
|
onliners450
Net Addicted, Period.
Premium
join:2002-12-19
Lebanon, CT
| Re: & Yes I back Charter 100% in this action.It's the first thing that THEY have done right in my opinon.At least in this area.Perhaps Charter is great in some places but here they have simply been terrible.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-04 19:08:31] | |
|
|
Thrawn2
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Premium
join:2001-04-09
Davenport, IA | KEEP fighting If my isp went against the RIAA maybe i wouldnt mind the price hikes. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
coastjam
Premium
join:2001-03-05
Atascadero, CA | Charter | |
|
|
See 21 replies to this post |
|
Rygel
Learn How To Use Reply
Premium
join:2001-11-17
Malone, NY
clubs: | Yeah Bravo!! Come on Cablevision!! | |
|
| 
Finalnight
join:2002-05-10
Omaha, NE
clubs: | Re: Yeah Heck, AOL (25.3 million subscribers) and Comcast (4.6 million) alone joining the fight would probably turn the tide. | |
|
| | RavenTKR
join:2003-05-12
Cleveland, OH | Re: Yeah The only thing is that AOL won't be joining the fight because of conflict of interest. They are a part of Time Warner, one of the music companies represented by the RIAA.
If they would join the fight, it would possibly turn the tide. | |
|
| | | 
Time
Premium
join:2003-07-05 | Re: Yeah You forgot that AOL broke off from Time Warner a few months ago, so there is a chance.
--
Freedom is not thought upon until it is gone | |
|
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| Whatever happened to Our Constitutional Right to.. Heck, Whatever happened to Our Constitutional Right to Privacy? The stupid DMCA can not override that I would think, And making an end run around the Judicial System sounds like that is just What the RIAA and possibly the MPAA liked. I'm Glad Charter is standing their ground in court, The RIAA doesn't like that I'll bet. Not one little bit. After all I believe in Fair Use, Sure I have some LP Records, CDs and Cassettes and any MP3s that I may have are just backups of those formats and are just used on My PC and aren't shared. But the RIAA would possibly call Me a Pirate, Just for Having them. And here's a link on the issue of Fair Use and Who possibly Opposes It over at CNet News.com. And the DMCAs Origins too.
--
Charter Pipeline rules in Hesperia, CA, Verizon (ex-GTE) sucks.....
[text was edited by author 2003-10-04 19:18:56] | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
|
rsa0
join:2003-01-25
Birmingham, AL |  boycot RIAA
| |
|
CablePower
Tmd
join:2003-08-29
Milton, FL | Tis a shame Kinda glad I'm not using Charter anymore. Harboring thieves isn't the kind of practice I like to support with my business. | |
|
inkarpathos
join:2003-10-05
| Will it stand in court I am writing you from a little island in Greece were our fastest internet is a 128 kbits (ISDN). We do not have DSL or cable in these parts. I have never downloaded any music and I never will, since it is all trash. I only have one question, will the information obtained by the RIAA stand in court.
From my understanding, the RIAA obtained the information illegally. The used a program named kazaa lite, which violates the copyright of Kazaa. I also read that Kazaa is taking to court RIAA for copyright violations.
If a police officer come to your house without a search warrant and start searching it and fines 100 pounds of cocaine, this information will get thrown out from court, because an illegal method was used.
If the police wire taps your house, without a court order, whatever information was obtained, it can not be used in a court of law.
Do we not have the same thing happening know. The IP addresses were obtained illegally by the RIAA. This information should not be used in a court of law. I would like to see, how the RIAA will weasel it way out of this. | |
|
| CablePower
Tmd
join:2003-08-29
Milton, FL
| Re: Will it stand in court Illegally-obtained information typically just pertains to cops. If the cops violated a law to obtain information, it can be thrown out, but as anybody who's watched Cop & a Half knows, a trespassing child who witnesses a crime can still be used as a witness, regardless that they were breaking a crime to witness it.
Really the only people who have a case against the RIAA as far as the Kazaa Lite situation goes are Sharman networks, and I'd love to see them win that case, since it would prove that they do do business in the United States and would therefore set the legal precedent needed to actually sue them. | |
|
|
lostnthwoods
join:2001-12-03
Arcadia, OK | You also failed to mention the most important point of all - who can afford the better lawyer. It's not about who's right or wrong, but who has enough money to stand and fight back. | |
|
CablePower
Tmd
join:2003-08-29
Milton, FL
| What'll be nice... is when the RIAA wins this and the legal precedent is set so that these dirtbag thieves can't hide behind false claims of rights to privacy on information that they themselves broadcast to the general public.
Not as nice as when pirates are declared not human by congress, and June-September is made Pirate season by the Game Department. God, those'll be good times. Finally hunting something worth hunting.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-05 02:58:46] | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
|
|
|
·
·
·
·
