Declaran ilegal la búsqueda de usuarios que copian música por Internet en EEUU

Apuesto mi yate a que esta noticia no sale en antena3 o en los telediarios de las principales televisiones españolas.

Solo sacan la mierda del porno de internet para desprestigiar la red de redes.

Salu2.

Los usuarios de p2p podremos haber perdido algunas batallas en los tribunales, como la de Napster. Pero de ninguna manera perderemos la guerra: ni el dinero, ni el poderío de las grandes discográficas podrán con millones de usuarios dispuestos a compartir toda su información y datos de manera descentralizada.

Por fin entro algo de razon en esto, la RIAA se pensaba que podia hacer lo que le pasara por las narices, saltandose las leyes y todo lo que quisieran, pero en realidad esa practica de rastreo no es legal, las compañias proveedoras de internet no pueden desvelar los datos de sus clientes a menos que haya una decision judicial que asi lo requiera, es mas, si se supiera que un proveedor esta dando datos personales a la RIAA seria una malisima imagen y perderia clientes muy rapidamente, vamos que podria suponer la ruina de tal compañia.

Esto es la guerra, RIAA, SGAE, artistas contra proveedores de internet, usuarios. Es mas no se como han podido poner el canon en los cds, pero quien se han creido que son, ademas de como lo impusieron, amenazando a los distribuidores de cds sino implantaban el canon, no entiendo como el gobierno permite algo asi, que seria el que si podria implanter un impuesto, pero no una asociacion, es de locos. Y como no sabemos quien compra cds para piratear o cosas personales, pues canon a todos, por si acaso nos piratean. Pero cuidado porque el canon nos permite a los usuarios piratear, o acaso no estamos pagando a esa asociacion para derechos de autor? Ademas de que es de todos bien conocido de que los artistas no ganan ni 1 euro por cd vendido, que es en los conciertos donde realmente ganan su dinero por el disco que tiene en venta, ademas de que el estar su disco en internet puede promocionarle y darle a conocer. Y nos vienen con que el disco tiene unos costes de produccion, de fabricacion, etc, es que acaso vale eso 12 euros como minimo en el 90% de discos? De donde sacan tanta pasta los pobres presidentes de discograficas? Pero si hay una crisis grandisima por culpa del top manta, no? Pero cuidado, estan yendo con los potenciales clientes que no pueden comprar muchos discos por culpa de los altisimos precios, y que si vienen a por nosotros, puede pasar de todo, y es que si nosotros queremos no se vende ni un solo disco, entonces a quien le harian una rabieta? Es que no quieren comprar un solo disco, vamos a obligarles a comprar, sino compras 10 discos al mes te metemos en la carcel, y valdran 30 euros cada uno. Sigo repitiendo, cuidado porque todo esto es un arma de doble filo, no es tan facil como meter a la carcel a un usuario y ya, es que si los usuarios queremos, podemos tener el poder, o quien compra discos mas que los usuarios???

esto viene en united crowns creo que es muy exacto para afinar en que consiste realmente esta sentencia y que puede pasar
lo siento pero no me apetece traducir, xd
Q: What does Friday's decision mean for me, if I'm worried about getting
sued by the recording industry for using a peer-to-peer network?
A: Friday's decision does not affect whether it's legal to upload or
download music. That doesn't change. But it does make it more difficult for
the record labels to unmask people suspected of running afoul of copyright
laws.

I've heard of the possibility of "John Doe" lawsuits. What are those?
Until now, the RIAA has used an expedited subpoena process provided for
under copyright law, which it says allows it to force ISPs to hand over
customer names without a judge's approval or even a lawsuit. If Friday's
decision stands, the record industry will likely be compelled to take the
more time-consuming and costly step of filing "John Doe" lawsuits against
people whose identities are not yet known. The person would eventually be
unmasked during court proceedings.

This option has a possible downside for the RIAA, however. Currently, the
trade association knows the identity of the people it names as defendants.
By switching to a process in which anonymous people are sued, the RIAA runs
the risk of making an embarrassing misstep--by suing a son or daughter of a
record label executive or of a U.S. senator, for example.

How does this ruling affect me, if I'm already being sued by the RIAA?
If you're already being sued, it's not going to help you. The trade group's
lawyers know who you are, and those lawsuits can go forward, said Paul Levy,
an attorney at Public Citizen who wrote a brief opposing the RIAA in
Friday's case. "If they've already been identified, it seems to me that they
are just as much subject to suit for copyright violation as they were
before," he said.

On the other hand, if the RIAA has sent your Internet service provider (ISP)
a subpoena demanding your name, and your ISP has not responded, the provider
can probably refuse to divulge your identity.

I work at an Internet service provider. What happens if I get a subpoena
demanding the identity of one of my users who's allegedly violating
copyright law?
The RIAA has been using a Washington, D.C., federal court to send subpoenas
to ISPs all over the United States. It won't be able to continue to send out
these subpoenas from that court any more. If you receive or already have
received such a subpoena, you probably don't have to comply with it.

But the RIAA has a second option--which is where things get complicated. Its
attorneys can use any other court to send subpoenas. If that happens,
Friday's decision would not be binding, although other judges could decide
to follow it, if they wish.

"To date, they've filed everything in D.C., because they had a great
decision," Public Citizen's Levy said, referring to an earlier ruling that
is now reversed. "Now I think you'll see them shopping in other circuits,
where they can be more successful."

Will this ruling allow people who've settled to get their money back?
Probably not.

How long does it take for this ruling to take effect?
It's effective immediately.

What happens next? Can the RIAA appeal?
Yes, the RIAA can appeal. It has two choices.

It has 45 days to ask the full Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to
hear its appeal--but that's probably a long shot. The chief judge of that
appeals court was one of the three jurists on the panel that unanimously
ruled against the RIAA on Friday.

The record labels' second choice is to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear
their appeal, a request that must be filed within 90 days. The high court is
under no obligation to take the case. If the Supreme Court does accept an
appeal from the RIAA, its eventual ruling would set a national standard one
way or another.

If the RIAA eventually loses its battle to wield the subpoena power in the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) against peer-to-peer network users,
its lobbyists will likely turn to Congress for help. Friday's decision was
very narrow: All it said is that the current wording of the DMCA means that
it cannot be used against peer-to-peer users who commit infringements.
Congress could change that.

Buenas,

"Una corte norteamericana de apelaciones ha determinado que los métodos que se usan para rastrear a quienes comparten música a través de Internet no están autorizados por la Ley."

Y quien te dice que mañana hagan una ley que esten autorizados a rastrear? en fin el tiempo nos lo dira...

Salu2