This is an excerpt from a Washington Times article, that although it deals with the Music industry, will inevitably carry over to artistic copyrights in the visual arts as well; "......Music industry piracy subpoenas illegal WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court in Washington told the record industry Friday it could no longer issue subpoenas to track down and sue alleged file swappers. Overturning a series of decisions in favor of the Recording Industry Association of America, the court said copyright law did not allow the organization to use subpoenas for the identity of file swappers on Internet service providers' networks, CNET News.com reported. We are not unsympathetic either to the RIAA's concern regarding the widespread infringement of its members' copyrights, or to the need for legal tools to protect those rights," the court wrote. It is not the province of the courts, however, to rewrite (copyright law) in order to make it fit a new and unforeseen Internet architecture, no matter how damaging that development has been to the music industry. The decision did not address the legality of the lawsuits that have already been filed against hundreds of individual computer users...." Just FYI, for those that follow this stuff.....:)

IMO, good decision by this judge. Americans as a whole, do not realise how close we are to losing an awful lot of privacy rights and privilages all because greedy corporations have been able to enact 'blanket' acts. An act that can be interpreted to cover a very, very broad range of activities, even activities that are exclusive of the original act. I do not support the thief of any software or art, period! But, I am not willing to give up any rights to my privacy either and, in this case, I do not feel that an ISP should have to devulge, much less track the names of particular individuals, to any group of lawyers. These corporations and lawyers are making big dollars while the artist is making pennies. This is not about the artist not making money, this is about the corporations not making more money. My apologies if any are offended.... BabaLouie

I don't see how it will change the situation. I mean, what happened to Rochr with the techno CDs, would happen regardless of the ability to issue subpoenas. That is, you can always close down an offending site if they display your work without a permission. And if the thief asks money for something of yours, you can always track him down without resorting to a subpoena against an ISP. And individual lawsuit will still be possible. So, status quo ante belli. BTW, even if it applies, it will change absolutely nothing in your copyright. BTW 2, I'm for the court's decision, because RIAA has very little to do with protecting the authors and their copyrights.

BTW 2, I'm for the court's decision, because RIAA has >very little to do with protecting the authors and their >copyrights. Erlik, that statement is so very true, RIAA is not protecting the author/artist and their copyrights, it is only giving corporations and their lawyers a 'carte blanc' subpoena to go virtually anywhere they want and for very nearly any reason they want. BabaLouie

I have had some dealings with the music industry and music artists and from my short experience I can say that I have to agree wholeheartily with Erlik and BabaLouie. And I too am concern over my rights slowly being eroded and infringed upon.

Hey, I just thought you guys would like to know.....geez, and I thought I was paranoid after working for the US gov. for so many years.....;]

Good for the Judge!!! I hate to say it but this seems to be coming down to us vs RIAA.

Music Artists getting only pennies per album, while they did the real work of making a hit song.

The promise that CD prices would come down years ago, while CD prices went up and pressing costs went down.

The RIAA and all the corp lawyers have only shown that they are only interested in themselves and the pile of cash they accumulate.

I think that most of us here have no problems with people having our artwork on their computers. Private use of my artwork is fine. Use as wallpaper or inspiration for your artwork is fine by me and I am sure most of us here agree? It is funny how many recording artists feel the same way about their music.

I feel we are more like the music artists who make MP3s to share with everyone. Commercial use without permission would be a big no no as we would all love to have our share for all our hard work. Don't steal our work and claim it as your own but it is fine to share it.

"That is, you can always close down an offending site if they display your work without a permission." This is exactly what the RIAA is trying to do. With peer to peer netwrks like Kazaa, the "offending site" is some user's hard drive. This is why the RIAA wants to know who those users are.

I think Zhann has unwittingly opened a can of worms here. We understand that her contention is that the court is not allowing the RIAA to serve subpoenas to help them track down music file swappers and her concern is that this would translate over to us as graphic artists and our work as it relates to copyright infringement. And for that she should be appreciated and commended. So thanks Zhann for looking out! What we are seeing here is a backlash at the RIAA. The difference here is that the RIAA represents big business whose only interest in this whole matter is to line their pockets further with little concern for the recording artist themselves. They are maneuvering to get the legal upper hand because after bleeding consumers dry for years, the worm has now turned. Theyre still selling music and still lining their pockets but their not getting what their greed is dictating they should be making.

I have got to agree with the others this would be the first step into giving up too much of our freedom and privacy. What about the granmother who was accused because she had Kassa on her puter, Some people d/l the software and never use it, and if you're a grannie you probably have young family members who might do that without your knowledge. Catlin

Apples and Oranges. We don't have a problem of our artwork being shared to the extent of our work being traded in Kazaa, probably never will. We also don't have the interest of a money grabbing industry. I have yet to see alot of graphic labels/houses that pay little to their artists and reap a huge profit from the artists work. That's the funny thing about it. The artists don't seem to mind as much as the labels?

The problems we see as graphic artists that we worry about most; Others making a profit on our art without proper compensation, stealing our work and claiming it as their own, or using our work in a commercial interest without asking us. In which the current copyright laws protect us just fine. Without us invading anyones privacy. Really how many of us have looked on Kazaa for copies of our artwork?

Best way for RIAA to fix the problem would be to lower their profit a bit. Cut CD prices on new artists CDs to say $5 to $10 buck range, not the $16 to $20 bucks you see now. Cut the profit needed for legit places like iTunes, Napster, etc from .80 cents a song title to say .35 to .40 cents a song. Make an individual song cost .50 cents. Why should I turn to iTunes when I can buy the CD for just about the same price and have a cold hard product in my hand, not to mention the CD jacket etc? The only thing it can save me is the songs I don't really care for. This could double the sales of CD and iTunes, as we would probably still spend about the same amount for our music but have twice as much to show for it, and fulfill the promise that the RIAA made to us in the late 70s early 80s that CD prices will fall as the cost to press a CD falls.

The RIAA should spend the money they are spending now on court costs by lowering costs to the individual. MP3s are nothing more then cassette recordings of 45s. Yeah I am old enough to remember records and making cassettes from songs on the album. iTunes and Napster are providing this generations 45s, lower the cost and reap the rewards. But in the end for RIAA it really is all about the money not the fans.

Sorry I don't mean to turn this into an attack on RIAA. They are just doing what is best for their interests. In the end, as I stated above the court's decision doesn't really change anything for us.

In Canada we pay a fee to buy blank cd's.Whether or not they are for music.It is for the music industry to commpensate what they say is lost revenue.

Ah, Wolf: >The RIAA should spend the money they are spending now on >court costs by lowering costs to the individual. Why do you think they are so hard on Kazaas? Not because of individuals.

Attached Link: http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html

That's just Sick amethyss, next they will want to tax your hard drive space (per meg deal for all the MP3s you may want to have on there)

Thanks catlin, I was always wondering if I should quit my career as a 7-11 night clerk to be in a rock-n-roll band. Guess I should stick where the money is. No wonder the individual bands and artists are not concerned with MP3s effect on their music. Maybe even seeing it as a way to get their music to the people who really enjoy it and cut out the middle man in the trench coat.