YA(RIAA)T: Counter suit filed against the RIAA

[silverpig]

3rd article down

RIAA Countersuit Filed
A file-sharing Internet user has filed the first legal challenge against The Recording Industry Association of America's clampdown on downloading. The anonymous woman - named only as "Jane Doe" in legal documents - claims that the industry group's attempts to obtain her identity violated her right to privacy. The suit was filed in August, after "Jane Doe" was warned by her Internet server that the RIAA had demanded her identity

 

[silverpig]

Oh, and I searched for counter, countersuit, counter suit... didn't find anything.

 

[CubicZirconia]

This is really getting picky and I don't care, but this was mentioned in this thread on 8/28.

 

[Tab]

She is gonna lose 😛 She thinks she cant beat a Multi-Billion Dollar Industry? In America?

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: Tabb
She is gonna lose 😛 She thinks she cant beat a Multi-Billion Dollar Industry? In America?

The smoking industry has gone down a couple of times.

 

[SagaLore]

It's hard for her to claim a right to privacy when she's using the Public Internet to break the law. 😉 She will lose.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
It's hard for her to claim a right to privacy when she's using the Public Internet to break the law. 😉 She will lose.

Wrong. Privacy rights extend to the internet. That's why government authorities have to get a warrant to place a Carnivore box into an ISP's network --and even then, they have to get a warrant for each and every individual person that they want to monitor (after providing significant evidence that a crime is being committed). And, after all that, they have to get a warrant to monitor email, another warrant to monitor browsing, and so on. Internet Privacy is taken just as equally as someone getting mail in their mailbox or someone getting a telephone call.

 

[Ness]

I do believe that the DMCA has taken away the privacy of people, when they are found to be stealing copyrighted material.


Additionally, she was found because she openly shared copyrighted material, which anyone could obtain. Anyone could have traced her IP if she was sharing files, anyone could run a simple whois and find her ISP and anyone could email them a letter that they want their information... and because of the DMCA, they are required to give up that information or they can be taken to court in lieu of the person.


Or something to that extent...

In otherwords, he case will fail, and in honesty, it should.

 

[Amused]

"The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

This only protects you against government intrusion (as do all the Rights in the Bill of Rights). She has no case, because she has no "right to privacy" from a private organization or party in a civil case.

That is, if you read the Constitution or Bill of Rights literally, as it was intended.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: SagaLore
It's hard for her to claim a right to privacy when she's using the Public Internet to break the law. 😉 She will lose.

Wrong. Privacy rights extend to the internet. That's why government authorities have to get a warrant to place a Carnivore box into an ISP's network --and even then, they have to get a warrant for each and every individual person that they want to monitor (after providing significant evidence that a crime is being committed). And, after all that, they have to get a warrant to monitor email, another warrant to monitor browsing, and so on. Internet Privacy is taken just as equally as someone getting mail in their mailbox or someone getting a telephone call.

The RIAA is not the government. ONLY the government is bound by warrant and probable cause rules.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Originally posted by: Amused
"The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

This only protects you against government intrusion (as do all the Rights in the Bill of Rights). She has no case, because she has no "right to privacy" from a private organization or party in a civil case.

That is, if you read the Constitution or Bill of Rights literally, as it was intended.

Conversely, I don't think the Constitution says private entities have the right to subpoena individuals on their own.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: SagaLore
It's hard for her to claim a right to privacy when she's using the Public Internet to break the law. 😉 She will lose.

Wrong. Privacy rights extend to the internet. That's why government authorities have to get a warrant to place a Carnivore box into an ISP's network --and even then, they have to get a warrant for each and every individual person that they want to monitor (after providing significant evidence that a crime is being committed). And, after all that, they have to get a warrant to monitor email, another warrant to monitor browsing, and so on. Internet Privacy is taken just as equally as someone getting mail in their mailbox or someone getting a telephone call.

The RIAA is not the government. ONLY the government is bound by warrant and probable cause rules.

What does that have to do with the alleged invasion of pricacy? Voyerisim is an invasion of privacy and it's not legal. A private party taking mail out of a persons mailbox is an invasion of privacy and it's not legal. A private party tapping a person's phone is an invasion of privacy and is not legal.

Just because the organization in question is a private one doesn't mean they're allowed to do whatever they chose. While the RIAA isn't bound by the same rules as the government there still are rules.

That being said this lady is going to lose.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: SagaLore
It's hard for her to claim a right to privacy when she's using the Public Internet to break the law. 😉 She will lose.

Wrong. Privacy rights extend to the internet. That's why government authorities have to get a warrant to place a Carnivore box into an ISP's network --and even then, they have to get a warrant for each and every individual person that they want to monitor (after providing significant evidence that a crime is being committed). And, after all that, they have to get a warrant to monitor email, another warrant to monitor browsing, and so on. Internet Privacy is taken just as equally as someone getting mail in their mailbox or someone getting a telephone call.

The RIAA is not the government. ONLY the government is bound by warrant and probable cause rules.

What does that have to do with the alleged invasion of pricacy? Voyerisim is an invasion of privacy and it's not legal. A private party taking mail out of a persons mailbox is an invasion of privacy and it's not legal. A private party tapping a person's phone is an invasion of privacy and is not legal.

Just because the organization in question is a private one doesn't mean they're allowed to do whatever they chose. While the RIAA isn't bound by the same rules as the government there still are rules.

That being said this lady is going to lose.

If you make something publicly available for anyone to access, you're essentially forfeiting your right to privacy on it. My ish is the RIAA should have to conclusively prove wrong doing and get a court subpoena to get names from ISPs. This DMCA-authorized shotgun subpoena tactic is what pisses me off.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: SagaLore
It's hard for her to claim a right to privacy when she's using the Public Internet to break the law. 😉 She will lose.

Wrong. Privacy rights extend to the internet. That's why government authorities have to get a warrant to place a Carnivore box into an ISP's network --and even then, they have to get a warrant for each and every individual person that they want to monitor (after providing significant evidence that a crime is being committed). And, after all that, they have to get a warrant to monitor email, another warrant to monitor browsing, and so on. Internet Privacy is taken just as equally as someone getting mail in their mailbox or someone getting a telephone call.

The RIAA is not the government. ONLY the government is bound by warrant and probable cause rules.

What does that have to do with the alleged invasion of pricacy? Voyerisim is an invasion of privacy and it's not legal. A private party taking mail out of a persons mailbox is an invasion of privacy and it's not legal. A private party tapping a person's phone is an invasion of privacy and is not legal.

Just because the organization in question is a private one doesn't mean they're allowed to do whatever they chose. While the RIAA isn't bound by the same rules as the government there still are rules.

That being said this lady is going to lose.

Please point out the law that says you have an right to privately download copyrighted material online without paying for it.

 

[Amused]

Let me set this straight. As I pointed out, you have no Constitutional right to privacy from other individuals. Only a protection from government.

That said, the federal government and states have created privacy laws for specific acts to protect people from invasions of privacy. Such as the medical and credit privacy acts, and peeping tom laws.

But these are NOT universal protections of privacy from individual intrusion. They ONLY cover specific acts.

A recent loophole was peeping tom by camera. While it was illegal to audio tape someone without them knowing, or to peep into their window, it was NOT illegal to secretly install a camera and videotape them. As you can see, the laws protecting you from other individuals are specific laws covering specific acts.

And as far as I know, there is NO law protecting your "right" to privately download copyrighted material online.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused
That is, if you read the Constitution or Bill of Rights literally, as it was intended.

Where were you when gopunk and I had a long and pointless argument about that? 😉

 

[her209]

Wait, so does that mean that if the RIAA leaves their web server open for anyone to get in, I can do what I want with it and not have legal consequences??? 😀

 

[Jittles]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: SagaLore
It's hard for her to claim a right to privacy when she's using the Public Internet to break the law. 😉 She will lose.

Wrong. Privacy rights extend to the internet. That's why government authorities have to get a warrant to place a Carnivore box into an ISP's network --and even then, they have to get a warrant for each and every individual person that they want to monitor (after providing significant evidence that a crime is being committed). And, after all that, they have to get a warrant to monitor email, another warrant to monitor browsing, and so on. Internet Privacy is taken just as equally as someone getting mail in their mailbox or someone getting a telephone call.

The RIAA is not the government. ONLY the government is bound by warrant and probable cause rules.

What does that have to do with the alleged invasion of pricacy? Voyerisim is an invasion of privacy and it's not legal. A private party taking mail out of a persons mailbox is an invasion of privacy and it's not legal. A private party tapping a person's phone is an invasion of privacy and is not legal.

Just because the organization in question is a private one doesn't mean they're allowed to do whatever they chose. While the RIAA isn't bound by the same rules as the government there still are rules.

That being said this lady is going to lose.

Please point out the law that says you have an right to privately download copyrighted material online without paying for it.

The ends does not justify the means.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Jittles

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: SagaLore
It's hard for her to claim a right to privacy when she's using the Public Internet to break the law. 😉 She will lose.

Wrong. Privacy rights extend to the internet. That's why government authorities have to get a warrant to place a Carnivore box into an ISP's network --and even then, they have to get a warrant for each and every individual person that they want to monitor (after providing significant evidence that a crime is being committed). And, after all that, they have to get a warrant to monitor email, another warrant to monitor browsing, and so on. Internet Privacy is taken just as equally as someone getting mail in their mailbox or someone getting a telephone call.

The RIAA is not the government. ONLY the government is bound by warrant and probable cause rules.

What does that have to do with the alleged invasion of pricacy? Voyerisim is an invasion of privacy and it's not legal. A private party taking mail out of a persons mailbox is an invasion of privacy and it's not legal. A private party tapping a person's phone is an invasion of privacy and is not legal.

Just because the organization in question is a private one doesn't mean they're allowed to do whatever they chose. While the RIAA isn't bound by the same rules as the government there still are rules.

That being said this lady is going to lose.

Please point out the law that says you have an right to privately download copyrighted material online without paying for it.

The ends does not justify the means.

Exactly.

And just for the record to get to Amused's point there is no law that says you have the right to download copyrighted material online without paying for it. But please point out to me the part of my post where I said she (or anyone) should have that right 😉