crackerjacker
September 20th, 2003, 03:00 PM
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=musicNews&storyID=3477394
"Whether they take it up yet is another matter," he adds. "Verizon is the first challenge. SBC Communications has refused to honor the subpoenas, so you can expect litigation there. The court traditionally likes to wait for an issue to bubble up in several different lawsuits in several appellate decisions.
"But," Hayes continues, "if the court thinks there are legitimate constitutional issues -- privacy, whether there is sufficient due process or the fact that there are no judges involved in granting the subpoenas -- they may decide to do so."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
even if they take it to the courts, sbc will not reveal peoples names or identities. however, due to the recent precedent taking place its a good thing to see how this plays out specifically because of this fact from the article*
Whether the Supreme Court will take it up depends on whether the conflict is about statutory construction or constitutional issues.
and even if this comes into play, there is even more to decide basically whether, this new bill is enacted.
*just basic information*
James D. Ellis, executive VP/general counsel of SBC -- which supports Brownback's bill -- said it would require the alleged copyright owner to "reasonably investigate his claim and expose his claims to the light of day, pursuant to the protections of Federal Rules of Procedure
this means that if this bill is passed, this is what i will occur.
It would provide Internet users basic notice and an opportunity to be heard," he added.
Brownback said he supports "strong protections of intellectual property" and said his bill, S.1621, would restore a balance of rights. Instead of using informational subpoenas to gain the identities of alleged infringers, the RIAA would have to file "John Doe" lawsuits and present evidence of infringement to a judge. The bill has no co-sponsors.
-----------------------
yeah i posted excerpts but what the hell.
i just thought that the whole basis for this thread is to point out what really matters, i mean people can still read it.
hmm
anyways this is good news.
peace
"Whether they take it up yet is another matter," he adds. "Verizon is the first challenge. SBC Communications has refused to honor the subpoenas, so you can expect litigation there. The court traditionally likes to wait for an issue to bubble up in several different lawsuits in several appellate decisions.
"But," Hayes continues, "if the court thinks there are legitimate constitutional issues -- privacy, whether there is sufficient due process or the fact that there are no judges involved in granting the subpoenas -- they may decide to do so."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
even if they take it to the courts, sbc will not reveal peoples names or identities. however, due to the recent precedent taking place its a good thing to see how this plays out specifically because of this fact from the article*
Whether the Supreme Court will take it up depends on whether the conflict is about statutory construction or constitutional issues.
and even if this comes into play, there is even more to decide basically whether, this new bill is enacted.
*just basic information*
James D. Ellis, executive VP/general counsel of SBC -- which supports Brownback's bill -- said it would require the alleged copyright owner to "reasonably investigate his claim and expose his claims to the light of day, pursuant to the protections of Federal Rules of Procedure
this means that if this bill is passed, this is what i will occur.
It would provide Internet users basic notice and an opportunity to be heard," he added.
Brownback said he supports "strong protections of intellectual property" and said his bill, S.1621, would restore a balance of rights. Instead of using informational subpoenas to gain the identities of alleged infringers, the RIAA would have to file "John Doe" lawsuits and present evidence of infringement to a judge. The bill has no co-sponsors.
-----------------------
yeah i posted excerpts but what the hell.
i just thought that the whole basis for this thread is to point out what really matters, i mean people can still read it.
hmm
anyways this is good news.
peace