Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet United States Your Rights Online

Verizon Set Back Again in DMCA Subpoena Case 354

Posted by michael from the relief-pitcher-needed dept.
NickV writes "Hope is getting direr for online privacy. The US District Court ruled today that Verizon must hand over the names of the two P2P downloaders. Hopefully Verizon can get a stay on the court order by the Court of Appeals. They have 14 days. Support the EFF! Without a serious lobbying group in DC, privacy will continue to be eroded."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Set Back Again in DMCA Subpoena Case More

Verizon Set Back Again in DMCA Subpoena Case

Comments Filter:
  • are we going to catch these terrorists? Obviously it is a plot to destroy capitilsm and instill communism. Give everything away for free!

    </sarcasm>

    • Re:But then how (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Peterus7 ( 607982 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:39PM (#5810325) Homepage Journal
      What I see here is the RIAA trying to make an example of two hapless college students (I'd wager) who just happened to be downloading the wrong things at the wrong time. It won't fly, because if they do start picking on simple P2P pirates, they will either have an upsurge of very very angry P2P users who actually buy music as well or something worse... Maybe a countersuit? A lowered reputation? (wait, what reputation...)

      Instead of being a bunch of arrogant shits, can't the RIAA realize that P2P will just die out on it's own if they provide a better way to obtain music. But they havn't done that really, and every step they take against P2P digs them into a deeper and deeper hole. Hell, I for one am never going to buy music again.

      What they don't get is that P2P is like a hydra. Cut off one head and 3 more appear and start taking chunks off of you.

      Maybe if the RIAA hadn't killed off napster, they might have a fighting chance. But the more they do against P2P, the more people realize that they are just bad people.

      Even if these so called music pirates are hurting them, all they're doing is making a martyr of them, which anyone could tell you is a very very bad choice. By making a martyr they create a reason to really, really hate the themselves, and end up screwing themselves over once again.

      Who makes the decisions for these people? P2P is made of people. It's not a computer bug or a virus, but millions of people. If those millions started using a RIAA endorsed P2P system, they'd make a lot of money. But instead they alienate them and that's the end of it.

      I wonder which will win, the RIAA or P2P. By declaring war on P2P in the way the RIAA has, there has to be a winner and a loser. And I have my bets on P2P, and indie bands.

      Plus, I think a lot of people would agree, the music industry would be a lot better without the recording industry telling us what music is hot and what music isn't, and what music we should hear and what music we shouldn't. They need to realize that their ways are over and they need to change.

  • common carrier? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dextr0us ( 565556 ) <[ta.lps] [ta] [su0rtxed]> on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:36PM (#5809650) Homepage Journal
    I thought that companies like verizion were common carriers, and that was exempt from subpoening [SP].

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:common carrier? (Score:2, Informative)

      by ZenShadow ( 101870 )
      They may have some immunity to punishment, but they can certainly be required to provide records. Phone company has to do this all the time for law enforcement, and they're the canonical "common carrier."

      --ZS

      • Re:common carrier? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:27PM (#5810203) Homepage Journal
        Problem is, the RIAA is not "law enforcement". That is why this has become a privacy issue. If these guys were being criminally prosecuted by the government, then of course Verizon would have to hand over their info; that still doesn't make the law criminalizing the behavior right, but it's a far cry from being asked to hand over this kind of information to a corporation or other private entity.

    • Re:common carrier? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EvilAlien ( 133134 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:39PM (#5810327) Journal
      Common carrier exemptions don't mean you can't get supoenaed, it means that you aren't liable for content. Verizon is being backed up against the wall by a court order to produce private customer information... of course, the obvious threat they are under is that the RIAA may try to hold them liable for infringing content. ISPs have deep pockets, I'm relative shocked that the recording industry isn't going after them directly like the are up here in Canada (see Tariff 22 will be the death of Canadian Internet Radio [kuro5hin.org] if you aren't familiar with whats going on up here).

      The issue at hand is not whether or not Verizon can identify customers based on reports of copyright infringement. Of course they can, and ISP can. The issue is that someone without investigative authority has convinced a court to order the release of this informaiton. Would the community be ranting about the death of privacy this much if the subpoena had come from the FBI?

      Also worth thinking about: is it a violation of your privacy when your ISP hands over your information when served with a warrant/subpoena that was obtained after showing a judge that they have reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place?

  • But they didn't do it! (Score:3, Funny)

    by xYoni69x ( 652510 ) <yoni.vl@gmail.com> on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:37PM (#5809652) Journal
    It was a virus! [slashdot.org]

  • Stupid Verizon! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I hate those blood-sucking monopolist money-leaching bottom-feeding scum-sucking bastards. I hope they die a quick and unmourned death and free us from their tyranny. Perhaps this suit will play...

    Wait, are they the good guys here? Long live Verizon!
    • Have you read anything about this at all? Verizon has fought against giving up this individual's info. Direct complaints to RIAA and give Verizon a little credit for telling them to shove off.

      • Re:Stupid Verizon! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by dnaSpyDir ( 167208 )
        off topic i know, but i couldn't resist after seeing your sig...

        "wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which fills up quicker" - my dad

        just slightly different :-)

  • Serious Lobbying group? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:37PM (#5809661)
    There are serious privacy groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center [epic.org]. The problem is that most people don't find it a serious enough issue right now to donate big money to, and you're unlikely to see many corporations that wish to back them.

  • Why? (Score:4, Informative)

    by mr. methane ( 593577 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:37PM (#5809663) Journal
    Not a rhetorical question here. There's an allegation that someone has broken a law. Verizon can identify that person. What is our interest in stopping them from doing so? How is this a "privacy" matter any differently from subpaenoing a witness to a car theft to testify as to what they observed?

    Or do I misunderstand the case?

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by bitkid ( 21572 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:45PM (#5809772) Journal
      The interesting thing about this case is that the RIAA walked up to Verizon and demanded the customers name. No subpoena, no court order. They claimed that the DMCA gives them the right to do so and that there is no court order necessary...

      So basicaly the cops need a court order, private lobyist groups don't. Somehow this doesn't sound right, does it? IANAL but I think the right thing(tm) to do would have been the RIAA suing John Doe and the court issuing a subpoena for Verizon. If the RIAA wins this case, then there will be a dangerous precedent for copyright holders to get customer data without any sort of oversight from courts.
      • I can see a great business model now. We could create a law enforcement company and then we can do all kinds of things that regular cops couldn't do. We could be the Corporate IP Police. It would be a bunch of black suit lawyers and money. Thats all it takes. We can also then create a database of these "known felons" and then sell it creating more revenue. Hell we can even copyright that.

        Of course there are legal problems with my idea but continuing to do this could make such a company viable. I can
        • I can see a great business model now. We could create a law enforcement company and then we can do all kinds of things that regular cops couldn't do. We could be the Corporate IP Police. It would be a bunch of black suit lawyers and money. Thats all it takes. We can also then create a database of these "known felons" and then sell it creating more revenue.

          I don't know if you meant that to be humorous, but I'd be VERY surprised if there weren't companies out there scrambling to do this exact thing right

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)

      by johnkoer ( 163434 )
      Verizon can identify that person, but they should not just turn it over to the RIAA. If this were a criminal case and it was a member of law enforcement, it would be a different story. It seems to me that the RIAA is on a fishing expedition to see how much they can get away with and how far they can push corporations to comply with their wishes.

      • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mr. methane ( 593577 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:00PM (#5809948) Journal
        Hmm. Good point.

        I'm inclined to think they should treat music/software piracy the same as they treat, say, turnstile-jumping in major cities: It's a civil offense punishable by a small (say $500) fine the first time, and it becomes a criminal offense ($5,000 fine, 30 days in the county lockup) the second time around.

        I'd REALLY like to hate the RIAA. Anybody who inflicts Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, and Creed on innocent civilians deserves mucho public hatred. But, I also know that perhaps 25% of internet backbone traffic is Kazaa/gnutella/whatever, and most of what's being "shared", don't belong to the person sharing it. If you can't enforce the ownership of music, information, data.. then you have no reason to expect yours to be protected either.

        I dunno. This is one of those cases where it's "wife-beater vs. town drunk"... You've got a bunch of slime-encrusted sadists bent on monetizing every aspect of american culture, and on the other side you've got a company that wants to protect it's subscribers privacy - so THEY can sell a telemarketing company the fact that you called a cancer support group last month. ("Hello! I'm calling for Bob's discount chemotherapy...")

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Telastyn ( 206146 )
      As per the article:

      The DMCA gives movie studios, record companies, software makers and other copyright owners the right to subpoena Internet service providers without getting a judge's approval.

      Verizon originally argued that it is unfair for the music industry to be allowed to obtain subpoenas without judicial approval, but Bates threw out that argument in a January ruling.

      It does not appear that Verizon has a problem with answering as much as just handing over information with (in their opinion) an i

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Enry ( 630 ) <enry@@@wayga...net> on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:31PM (#5810239) Journal
        There's presumably a lot of work and evidence to get a court order for such records. If any copyright holder were to demand such records from Verizon without needing a court order, they (Verizon) could quickly be swamped with the number of requests coming in.

        Verizon is trying to maintain that the courts should act as a bottleneck to cut down the number of frivilous requests for identity. Otherwise, they'll spend far too much time and money even handling the requests.

        They're on our side, but for very different reasons.

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by a302b ( 585285 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:50PM (#5809830)
      One problem is that it sets a precedent where ISPs are *expected* to simply hand over the information they have. It is not a big step for law enforcement officials to use corporations for easy information access, ostensibly for some noteworthy purpose such as "terrorist suspects" or what have you, but more usually for other matters.

      Civil liberties are usually eroded by justifiable actions in a specific time or circumstance, and them broadening their usage until they become "normal."


      • What stops me from say, going down a list of random people I dont like, and calling their ISPs, then getting their address and killing them all one by one down the list?

        Theres no privacy at all if this is law, anyone not just the RIAA, but ANYONE can claim you are a copyright infringer.
    • I was going to pose the same question. Hopefully you dont get modded down as "flamebait".

      Currently, the laws say trading copywritten music is illegal. Why are illegal things that geeks like "ok", and the authorities are "bad" for enforcing those laws..

      If the people in question were downloading/uploading kiddy pr0n, i'm sure most slashdotters would be all for Verizon giving up the info.

      • Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 )
        > If the people in question were downloading/uploading kiddy pr0n, i'm sure most slashdotters would be all for Verizon giving up the info.

        The question is one of due proccess. The RIAA did not present ANY evidence that this person actually did anything wrong. They weren't even ASKED to present evidence. No judge ever reviewed the merits of their request. They filed a one-page document with a County Clerk.

        Would you like it if I forced your ISP to reveal who you were without providing any evidence tha

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JoeCotellese ( 126966 )
      First off I'm not a lawyer. That said, my understanding of the DMCA is that anyone who believes that there is a copyright violation merely needs to fill out a form in order to obtain a supboena. The problem with that is the lack of due process. It doesn't prevent something like a bot sitting on Kazaa sending out automate forms find out personal information from an ISP.

      I don't really think that Verizon is protecting our privacy. It's really about the cost involved in processing these requests. I think the p


      • Thats one way to make the law useless, write the bot which simply sends massive amounts of infringement forms, not just for people on kazaa but just going down the list of random IPs accross every possible network.

        Then you could pressure the ISPs to the point that they are swamped, and let the ISPs get together to change the laws.

        Also you could do this to confuse the RIAA.

        Civil Disobedience.
      • --if this is how it works, it seems to me that it would be *quite legal* for anyone who has puchased a CD to use the dmca laws to fill out a form and demand that the riaa and their member corporations hand over all their records and traffic and emails because they are suspicious that they have indeed conspired to illegally fix prices and defraud investors and artists.

        Why would that would be different? If they say it isn't a "copyright" issue, I'd counter that and say "yes it is because you are not paying t

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mojotooth ( 53330 ) <mojotooth.gmail@com> on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:55PM (#5809887) Journal
      Because the DMCA is constructed in such a way that the violators are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Now the RIAA can go directly to Verizon and say "give us this name" and they must do so, without intervention or assistance from a judge.

      I do not trust the RIAA with that power. Neither should you.
      • They cannot go directly to Verizon, they still need to go through a court clerk. Much less than a judge, but they still just can't go asking ISP directly to give stuff up and forcing them to comply.
        • What exact "check" does the court clerk represent? They didn't pay the fee to talk to him? As if they'd omit that step? The normal course of events is that a judge is required for a subpoena as a check on the executive and the legislature.

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 )
      The "subpoena" issued to Verizon was a single page document filed with a county clerk. No judge was ever asked to review the subpoena and no evidence has ever been presented that any crime ever occurred.

    • Now I'm going to call up your ISP and they will give me your home address.

      I mean all I have to do is accuse anyone I dont like of copyright infringement and suddenly their ISP is forced to give me their information.

      How do you like that? Should I call your ISP up right now?
      • Well, it doesn't sound like it's quite that simple. You have to file a sworn statement detailing what you believe to be the nature of the offense. For example, that I have a copy of Emimem's new hit "I'm a talentless hack" posted on my computer.

        If I (the guy with Eminem's greatest hit) have a legitimate reason (such as a license from Endlessly Repetitive Records), then I tell you you're mistaken and you go about your business.

        Or if I know that you simply made the information up to get a subpoenae, then I

  • Lobbying group (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Elderly Isaac ( 667024 ) <old_ike@hotmail.com> on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:38PM (#5809668)
    Without a serious lobbying group in DC, privacy will continue to be eroded.

    Well, I can think of a number of serious privacy-related lobbying groups, though perhaps none with the power of the RIAA, MPAA, etc. Also, Verizon itself is not bereft of political power. Many universities and other ISPs were hoping that Verizon was big enough to win this.

    That being said, I'm not as cynical as the majority here on Slashdot, who believe that the value of dollar is the only way to get things done in government. I would say a bigger problem is ignorance of technological issues among those who pass the laws in the first place.
    • The EFF is not the number 1 group for privacy rights in America. I think the ACLU would be that group. And of course I am a card carying member.

      I support the EFF too.

  • This is scary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ad0gg ( 594412 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:38PM (#5809675)
    Now corporations have more power than the cops, since cops need a judicial approval aka warrant to retrieve evidense/information.

    • An Idea (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Adam9 ( 93947 )
      Ok, but I think the DMCA refers to copyright holders which includes corporations and individuals.

      Here's the idea. What if anyone (I'm sure you have a copyright on something) makes a random claim that someone else is infringing on the copyright. The RIAA did this, right?

      I mean, actually do it. Find a figurehead of somewhere and submit a request for the account information on whoever and claim they infringed on your copyright. Try to get the press to notice it too. Would this work?

  • Routine maint - Delete all the logs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IgD ( 232964 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:38PM (#5809683)
    A lot of websites brag that they don't keep any logs. Can't Verizon do this too? Are they required to track who, what and where on your internet connection?


    • I could say you infringed on my copyright with absolutely no proof, and they'd give me your address.

      So lets begin, calling all hackers, calling all hackers, lets see whos first to write the new hacking tool, lets called it the Address Sniffer, you just put in someones IP, and wait, a few days later the program shows you an email msg from the ISP with the address.

      God, I really hope this law doesnt pass, I'll have to hide my IP using proxies and whatever due to fear that everyone online will be able to sni

  • Regardless (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jstrain ( 648252 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:40PM (#5809706)
    of your views on file sharing and its legality, it would seem to me that the larger issue here is the ability of a non-government organization to obtain private information for their own use.

    Even if you agree that these people should be brought to justice through the use of this tactic because file sharing is wrong, this sets up a precedent for other situations which may not involve the noble goal capturing file sharers.

  • I expect/want this outcome (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <ajs.ajs@com> on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:42PM (#5809740) Homepage Journal
    I don't expect anyone short of the US Supreme Court to overturn this descision. There's no way to argue this case without turning to the constitutionality of the DMCA and its far-reaching privacy implications, and that's going to have to go to the USSC.

    I'm actually looking forward to the DMCA's day in court, though I'm not sure this is the ideal case for it, since it combines too many gray areas of the DMCA with business-vs-privacy with the unconstitutional elements of the DMCA. Still, I expect the only possible outcomes would be a) it's not reviewed by the USSC or b) there's some setback for the DMCA here, large or small....

    If it does go that far, the RIAA would be smart to simply drop the case.
    • I expect this to get appealed to the supreme court as well. It seems tied to privacy in such a way that I have a hard time seeing it *not* ending up there. The bigger issue is what other work on privacy in the supreme court will happen between now and then? The current sodomy law case seems bound to set some precedence on how the court views privacy.

  • These issues and the EFF need more attention (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zapp ( 201236 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:44PM (#5809767)
    I am an avid /. reader, and a privacy/YRO advocate, and it saddens me when I realize that 90% of the people I know haven't even HEARD of the DMCA or the Patriot Act or the EFF, or any of it.

    It seems to me, that the EFF could be likened to organizations like GreenPeace. Everyone who has ever been on a college campus knows what Green Peace is, but incase you don't they are a group of volunteers that solicit people for supporting their cause - that cause being supporting the environment through legal actions (lobbying, etc).

    Why don't we have people on campus letting people know about their freedoms, about the lies spread by the RIAA/MPAA, and about *what can be done to help* ?

    • Re:These issues and the EFF need more attention (Score:4, Insightful)

      by st0rmshad0w ( 412661 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @03:20PM (#5810684)
      Why is that such a surprise? What percentage of the American public knows more than next to nothing about computers, networks and all the other techno toys we don't think twice about dealing with. EVERYONE knows that otters (for example) are cute. Therefore, we must save the cute little otters, and all their other furry and feathered brethren.

      Tech is NOT sexy, or cute, or as in-your-face obvious as nature and it never will be. Furthermore, most of Greenpeace's stunts are designed around the principal of preventing the slaughter of one animal or another. Killing defenceless creatures == bad, worse if they're cute. Pretty damn simple eh?

      Another issue that we (meaning tech enthusiasts/advocates) face is the sheer language barrier, do you realize how hard it is to explain these issues to people when they can't seem to grasp the difference between login and password? Everyone can understand Greenpeace, we learned all their terms in elementary school.

      Greenpeace and environmental advocates have allies too, entities that own or oversee great expances of wilderness and preserves, huge advertising campaigns, and efforts directed at educating the children in schools to the dangers of environmental destruction. When exactly was the last time you heard about RIGHTS (cyber or otherwise) being so widely taught and examined in a school system. Our cause needs SERIOUS allies: tech powerhouses, artists, big content producers.

      "Why don't we have people on campus letting people know about their freedoms, about the lies spread by the RIAA/MPAA, and about *what can be done to help* ?" We could, there's nothing to stop it, but I don't think it'd help much. There are so many things cluttering up people's lives with worry that something like a tech issue is going to be simply pushed aside by concerns about the economy, the future of the planet and so forth. After all, even tho none of use here would like it, we could just switch off and still live long happy lives.

      I still maintain the only victory possible will need tech savvy people elected to all levels of government. But as to how to accomplish that, I could not begin to tell you.

  • It's a sad day... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IshanCaspian ( 625325 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:46PM (#5809783) Homepage
    ...when the right of corporations to profit exceeds the right of individuals to privacy. The whole point of due process and search restrictions is that it's more important to protect the privacy of everyone, even if that means letting many criminals go free. Sure, no one's going to argue that MP3 trading of copyrighted works is legal, but neither is going 35 in a 25 zone, or drinking underage, or photocopying sections of books, or what have you. Where the hell are the anti-trust laws and campaign finance reforms when you need them?

    I really don't see any way to destroy the RIAA without attacking their profits. The RIAA wants to turn our government into a police state just to ensure it's bottom line is well padded. The scary part of distopias like 1984 is not what is considered illegal, but how strictly it is enforced. When a private organization passes laws to protect its business model, and acts as a law enforcement agency without the consent of the people, I can't see how any attack on them, in any form could be considered immoral. We are confronted with a total hijacking of our government for the sake of profits. Artists be damned, copyrights be damned, I'm sick of this shit. That's why everyone should do everything they can to hurt the RIAA bottom line as much as possible. Buy no cds. Support live performances. Supply your (trustworthy) friends with free mp3's. The US government, especially when covered in republican parasites, will never choose the people over a lucrative corporation. Our only recourse is to not give them a DOLLAR.

    • Re:It's a sad day... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dnoyeb ( 547705 )
      The main job of the US Government has always been to protect the assets of the wealthy. Not just the US Government, but most governments.

    • Re:It's a sad day... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by k3v0 ( 592611 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:23PM (#5810171) Journal
      most people don't understand this. people will see (or not see, based on who owns the media outlet http://www.cjr.org/owners/ ) since it on the news, say to themselves "oh well mp3's are illegal copies anyway" and not even realize that everyone's privacy is at stake, not just people trading on a P2P.
  • When you give people freedom and liberty to use things like the Internet - you just dont know what they're gonna do with it ...

    You know - like - create self-organizing p2p networks and then trade files with it.

  • A good reason to stay away from the Internet (Score:3, Informative)

    by NetDanzr ( 619387 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:51PM (#5809844)
    Current laws are so confusing that I don't know anymore whether I have anything illegal on my PC or not. And even if I didn't, this case sets a precedens - if Verizon looses, the RIAA (and anybody else) can ask for the identity of a ISP customer without a proof. (Remember, kids, this case is not about prosecuting a music pirate, but about showing any proof that the person is a music pirate before prosecuting him.) This has been one of my main reasons why I decided not to have Internet access at home. That means a loss for an ISP, all on-line stores and even RIAA members, as the only music store around where I live is a used CDs store. Maybe if there were a few million people like me, the courts will see the foolishness of RIAA's request and rule in favor of Verizon...
  • Why? They seem to be behind the curve on this one.

  • Is it just me? (Score:3, Funny)

    by anon*127.0.0.1 ( 637224 ) <slashdot@@@baudkarma...com> on Friday April 25, 2003 @01:59PM (#5809936) Journal
    I read that last sentence as:

    Without a serious lobbying group in DC, piracy will continue to be eroded!

  • Doesn't the phone company have to tell law enforcement who a phone number belongs too if asked? Don't they have to provide a list of numbers that that phone number has called if asked?

    How is this different?

    • Civil, Criminal, Warrant (Score:4, Informative)

      by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:11PM (#5810055) Homepage
      This is a civil case, one group is asking for the private records of another, you should not have to turn over private information to any person who requests it.

      When the police get a warrant, there is an impartial authority (the judge) who decides that such information is worth violating the one parties privacy.

      The complaint is that there is no judicial oversite to these requests, and hence no protection for the individuals privacy.

      The key point is that these people are being targetted despite not being convicted of a crime, or even charged. There isn't necessarily enough evidence to accuse them of a crime, which Verizon would like to happen first.

  • I hope it's not me. (Score:3, Funny)

    by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:05PM (#5809996)

    Have the users in question been notified that they are the ones? It would suck if it turned out that it's me, and that the whole trouble is because I put my extensive "Yaz" collection up on Kazaa for a few days.

  • My two cents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hangtime ( 19526 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:05PM (#5809997) Homepage
    I agree that in the end that trading illegally is wrong, but what the High Court might do is take a look at the Amendment 4 and have a thought otherwise when it comes to the DMCA. What the DMCA is allowing is an unreasonable search and seizure. Here's where it gets tricky. Since the DMCA carries with it criminal charges it should therefore be subject to the highest of standards when it comes to a criminal investigation. If they had come with a warrant to look at logs I am sure Verizon would have complied, but they came when an act that circumvents the 4th Amendment. Indeed this portion of the DMCA should be ruled unconstitutional, it gives police powers to any copyright holder with no check on the authority. What if in the course of an investigation of one of these file traders they were found to be kiddie-pornographers? Could the evidence gathered by the request be used against them in a court of law? Would the entire case be thrown out? Very interesting questions indeed.

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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.

  • Encryption? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DarkBlackFox ( 643814 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:07PM (#5810018)
    So when ISPs are required to release customer information on open p2p connections and their respective users, and the open source community developes a self organizing, encrypted p2p network, using similar encryption technology to that of online purchasing (credit cards, etc) will the RIAA tackle encryption citing the DMCA? I'd like to see that hold up in a court. If all transmissions must be monitored for piracy, and one can not conceal the source of information, does this mean the RIAA and our ISPs have access to our credit card numbers when purchasing from amazon.com? If the same technology used to encrypt private information were applied tp p2p applications, such that the ISPs can't tell the difference between a credit card number and the Dixie Chick's latest hit, what would the RIAA do?


    • I didnt think I'd see the day where we'd all be forced into using freenet, but if these assholes think they can destroy the internet just to protect some fucking music files, we have to defend the internet in the only way possible.

      Is it worth it to see the whole internet destroyed just because a few music companies want to make money? I MEAN THE WHOLE INTERNET?!

      The music companies arent important enough to be allowed to ruin and destroy the internet

      So if you want to support true annonymous connections,

  • What's the big deal about subpoenas? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pettifogger ( 651170 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:11PM (#5810062)
    I don't know if everyone here realizes it, but subpoenas are a vital part of the legal system. Not to defend the RIAA, but they're just doing what they're entitled to do, and what literally millions of others have done in their cases.

    This is part of the process called "discovery," where the sides get to collect information about each other for a suit. Technically, a subpoena IS part of a legal process. You generally don't get to serve one unless you already have a case pending in court. That's why it is backed up by the power of the court. If you comply with a subpoena, no problem. If you refuse to comply, you can be found in contempt of court. If you have a problem with the subpoena, you take it to the judge hearing the case.

    And that's what happened here. Verizon didn't like the ruling, so they've been appealing it to higher levels in the court system, and I'm assuming that the rest of the case is being continued until this matter is resolved.

    This is just a strategic move on the part of the RIAA. They really don't believe that they're going to get any money out of these people. They knew that going in. What they're trying to do here is intimidate both ISPs and users. However, if they think this is going to stop piracy, they're wrong. I can think of a lot of ways to share music without using the Internet, and I'm not the only one.

    If they manage to drive file sharing off the Internet, file sharing is just going to pop up in another format. Until they start charging a price only modestly above margin for CDs, this isn't going to end. Has anyone noticed that DVDs are tending to be much cheaper than CDs? And we all know that movies (and DVDs, for that matter) are *much* more expensive to produce than music. Right now, the RIAA is in the middle of learning a very painful lesson about economics and markets. They're lashing out at what they perceive to be the problem, but it's not going to work.

    IAAL

    • You are entire right about subpoenas and discovery, but those are normally parts of court cases. The RIAA hasn't filed suit [com.com]:

      Bates earlier ruled that the RIAA was able to subpoena the subscriber's information under existing copyright law, even without an open legal case. Verizon had contended that the trade group needed to file suit against the anonymous subscriber for a subpoena to be valid.

      I'm not a lawyer, but I always thought discovery had to be part of a court case.

      To me, the RIAA is trying to gr

  • 10 print "hello world"
    20 Goto 10.

    I claim copyright. I am a incorporated llc, and this is software i created. I think that slashdot readers may be violating my copyright. I demand that Slashdot turn over the full lists of all their readers so i can sue them.

    Can anyone see why they can say no?

  • Breaking News -- Hope remains (Score:3, Informative)

    by MacWiz ( 665750 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [45nameizg]> on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:37PM (#5810302) Journal
    I don't have a link. I got this from Kazaa.

    1:08pm 04/25/03
    Judge rules in favor of Napster follow-ons By Russ Britt (CBS Marketwatch)

    In a case that could turn the tide on online piracy, a Los Angeles judge ruled Friday in favor of online file-sharing services Grokster and Morpheus, saying the two companies are not liable for online piracy by users of their service. The follow-on services to Napster -- which was forced to give up sharing of music files -- were sued by several major entertainment companies who sought to take the firms to trial. But U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson ruled in favor of the two firms. A third online file sharing service, Kazaa, is not affected by the ruling.

  • Maybe... (Score:3)

    by Bendebecker ( 633126 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @02:38PM (#5810312) Journal
    Maybe if Verison loses, we'll all be motivated to egt off our fat asses and actually do something about it instead of just sitting in front of a computer all day reading slashdot... Nahhh!

  • Probable cause in an age of wireless LANs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by coral256 ( 662687 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @03:13PM (#5810636)
    Aside from the constitutional issues with the DMCA, in an age of wireless LANs, I would suggest that there is increasingly an issue of whether there is probable cause for a search warrant of an access customer's premises and equipment based merely on the tying of allegedly illegal activities to an IP address allocated to that customer at the time that the activities were allegedly committed. For example, I live in an apartment building. In addition to my own wLAN, there are five (count 'em) wLANS, three of which aren't even encrypted (and using such imaginative names as Linksys and default). My point is that, at least in high density areas, there are plenty of wLANS on which third parties can piggyback--and such should be factored into any determination of probable cause.

  • Do You Have a Right to Hide Your Crimes? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @04:22PM (#5811253)
    No.

    Verizon isn't being asked to destroy anyone's privacy. They are being asked to deliver the identity of an individual that the state has sufficient reason to believe has commited illegal acts using Verizon's network.

    The same logic applies apart from the network-centric world of Slashdot. Suppose someone broke into a Walmart and stole a rifle. If he then shot three people with that rifle, would Walmart be threatening anyone's prviacy by handing over a surveillance tape to the police? No, they wouldn't.

  • Right to Privacy? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eaolson ( 153849 ) on Friday April 25, 2003 @04:28PM (#5811310)
    Without a serious lobbying group in DC, privacy will continue to be eroded.

    From an AP interview with Senator Rick Santorum on Apr. 7, 2003:

    ... this
    right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution...

    This isn't some wacko saying this. (Well, not some random wacko, anyway.) This isn't some RIAA or MPAA shill. This is a United States Senator. And we wonder how laws like the DMCA get passed?

  • What's in it for Verizon? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@gmail. c o m> on Friday April 25, 2003 @05:14PM (#5811748) Homepage Journal
    I'm curious as to what Verizon has to gain here. They can't possibly be doing this out of principle. So I really don't see why they're doing it. Pursuing this is costing them millions, and making them powerful enemies. And it's not like most users have heard of this case -- so they're not gaining themselves a significant number of customers. I really don't see what they have to gain.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close