Verizon Loses Suit Over Subpoena of Subscriber Info 670
Brian Golden writes "As a result of a suit filed by the RIAA, the identity of a Verizon customer with a penchant for mp3's was ordered to be released. Man, how many people are now sweating bullets trying to remember what they downloaded?" News.com.com also has a story. If you've forgotten about this case, see our earlier story. Verizon wasn't making any sort of principled stand to protect its users' privacy, it just wanted to avoid the costs of complying with the (many) subpoenas it will now receive.
Re:too easy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Simple Solution for ISPs (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on! (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, if he owned the CDs, that is a different story, but the probability of the guy (it has to be a guy!) owning those CDs just isn't there.
It just goes to show (Score:5, Insightful)
That applies to all other forms or needs of business as well.
"We shall strangle them with our laws!"
"But won't that hurt us as well, I mean we're all part of the world economy..."
"Ha ha! Then we shall strangle ourselves with our own laws first, to show them we mean business!"
this is not good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people involved in this will agree that it's probably time for the (MP|RI)AA to start working on consumer dis-satisfaction... if they start to sue individuals, things will get very bad.
Re:Simple Solution for ISPs (Score:5, Insightful)
Won't work, at least not without one hell of a tradeoff. If you still wanna be able to LART Joe Luzer for running the open SOCKS proxy through which you got spammed or DDoSed, RIAA has to be able to LART Joe Musicfan for running the Gnutella note through which they downloaded HilaryRosenIsABigFatBitch.mp3
If ISPs could blocked outbound port 25 traffic from residential cablemodem and DSL users, that'd greatly cut down the amount of spam the rest of the 'net has to deal with, but logs would still have to be kept with regards to DDoS issues.
Hmm the new.com article (Score:3, Insightful)
The cost is complying with the request (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the real cost to the ISP. Dealing with each of these requests, changing their log scripts, and handing over the data.
If the subpoena is particularly broad and the ISP is large, a subpoena can mean keeping gigabytes of data that the ISP would normally send to /dev/null.
--Pat
Re:too easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no. In most places, if you lend someone your car, and they get a ticket, you're responsible. You should carefully consider who you're lending you're car to.
Now, if you report your car as stolen (and it actually was stolen), and itshows up on one of those speed cameras, then yes, you can probably get out of the ticket, but not if you just lent it to your lead-foot friend.
Re:Dump Verizon (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dump Verizon (Score:3, Insightful)
Verizon was trying to stand up for one of their customers! The fact that they stood up to the RIAA is respectable itself. I'd rather boycott the ISPs which say "here's the info you requested, Ms Rosen."
Of course, I think Verizon is gonna appeal this, meaning that whatever John Doe is wanted by the RIAA is safe for just a little longer.
Re:sky.isFalling() = True (Score:3, Insightful)
As hard as it is to swallow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Has been superceded by
Track. Subpoena. Litigate.
Which had damn well better begotten by
Boycott. RIAA. NOW.
The ONLY way to get them to shut the hell up and off our backs, is to make sure their sales suck long after file-trading has been smacked-down.
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn the man.
use DMCA to get spammers (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens then? Use your imagination.
But what's the DMCA violation with spamming? The spammer has bypassed the technological measures installed on my machine (spam filters) preventing me from copying (receiving) their spam. Remember, the courts don't review this, so I can get their personal info just by asking.
Here, spammer...
From the CNN article: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The illegal distribution of music on the Internet is a serious issue for musicians, songwriters and other copyright owners, and the record companies have made great strides in addressing this problem by educating consumers and providing them with legitimate alternatives."
I am interested in legal methods of attaining high-quality, non restricted use
Exactly what strides have they been making? What alteratives are they giving us?
Re:this is not good... (Score:5, Insightful)
What bad? The RIAA SHOULD be suing individuals for violating copyright by trafficking MP3's.
The individuals are ultimately the ones responsible. ISPs, P2P services, etc., are merely conduits.
Ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAASpeak:
"The illegal distribution of music on the Internet is a serious issue for musicians, songwriters and other copyright owners. . ."
The "other" copyright owners are the record companies. In fact, I'm sure the record companies are the only copyright owners most of the time--but it's a lot easier to stick up for the rights of a well-known (or not) musician, than it is to stick up for the rights of a faceless, multi-billion-dollar corporation.
Seriously--if artists owned any share of the copyright after their CD hit the market, do you think we'd see the flood of remade songs that are on the airwaves today?
Re:This is complete and total bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think getting a subpoena to access relevant information related to a possible crime (with reasonable suspicion) is violating anybody's rights.
Folks are going to have to pay for those illegally downloaded MP3s somehow- either by purchasing the album, or through fines and jail time.
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:2, Insightful)
The power's concentrated in the hands of the copyright holders, who have the money and the control.
In other words, the power is concentrated with the people who actually create things of value, rather than the people who just want to take from others?
Gee, what a f'd up world.
Important - its not Verizon's Fault (Score:4, Insightful)
A court has ruled that they are legally bound to provide the information - if they do not provide it they will be acting illegally.
Whether Verizon choose to fight it from a consumer protection issue, or so that they were not open to a flood of court actions it is no longer in thier hands.
So they did stand up to it - and they lost.
It is not a customer service issue - its a matter of law - they have no choice.
If the bad law upsets you write your congresscritter - I can't because I'm not a US resident.
Re:Come on! (Score:5, Insightful)
Say for instance, a bunch of my CDs get scratched and are now unplayable on a couple of my players. So, I just download the whole albums off of Kazaa to replace them. Technically, I am within my rights to do this. Why? Because the music industry is trying to look at it like the software model, where the content is wholy apart from the media. Therefore, I've a payed for a licence to listen to this music, and not for a fragile disk that's been destroyed.
Interestingly, if they looked at it like they were selling you the CD (something they're loathe to do; see: the hard, bitter battle against used CD sales), instead of licencing the content, it could be argued illegal to do that. After all, if you scratch your car, you can't just walk down to the lot and drive another one off without asking, can you?
Of course, the RIAA once tried to convince people on their website that making backup copies of music you've bought was against the law. So, pesky legal "rights" are of little concern to them anyway.
Re:Come on! (Score:2, Insightful)
I own hundreds of CDs. If i decided to download every single track, rather than rip them myself, i'd be downloading 1000's of files. If i downloaded them all in a single day, i'd be in this person's situation.
I'm not implying that piracy wasn't involved, but i can think of at least one situation where it wasn't. (granted this is according to my own definition of piracy) Once RIAA wins this case, the likelyhood of a repeated situation is high.
Re:From the article: (Score:4, Insightful)
Or do you think that the ISP should be allowed to block your identity when you perform illegal activities with their equipment?
Stalkers, kooks and zealots hurrah! (Score:2, Insightful)
So, some girl blew you off on ICQ? Got her IP? Want her real life name and info? Sure, send an official looking letter to her ISP and say you 'suspect' her of downloading your stuff. Want to harrass some kid because he likes PS2 and not XBox? Same deal.
I hope you LEOs are paying attention. See that kid on IRC talking about smoking a joint? Want his real name and address? Here you go.
This marks the end of privacy online.
Oh great. Just wonderful. (Score:4, Insightful)
Great. It isn't enough that RIAA taxes blank media, now they are taxing ISP's by increasing the ISP's costs, and thus the price we pay for internet service.
It's starting to look like RIAA is a world wide government. I wonder if if RIAA has nukes, and if Blix is going to inspect them.
Oh wait. They do have a nuke. It's called DMCA.
Re:Come on! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, if he owned the CDs, that is a different story, but the probability of the guy (it has to be a guy!) owning those CDs just isn't there.
So, how does the RIAA know he downloaded 600 tracks?
Would the courts order Verison to give me someone's name if I thought they had downloaded one of my copywrited songs? (I bet not).
What about software, can any publisher now go and ask for the names of people they SUSPECT of illegal downloading their product???
The courts just set a precedent and the RIAA is probably going to continue with this activity until they realize it is futal and they go back to what they were originally supposed to do, set and maintain standards for recording.
Competition for the RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
I suppose this could fail on two counts: a) there's no way to be profitable on the same scale as the RIAA without protecting your assets through the same tactics they're currently using (which I doubt most of us believe) or b) to have the Gates-type bucks to do this you have to be such an unscrupulous bastard that you'd be no better than the RIAA anyway.
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Quick, name the last song written by the RIAA.
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyrights are usually held by record and publishing corporations, not the artists. I am sure you have heard the expression, "starving artist," but have not heard anything like "starving executive."
In other words, power is concentrated with the people who just want to take from others, rather than the people who actually create things of value. This goes way beyond the creative and performing arts to real, tangible things of value.
I'll bet most of the components in the computer you are using now were made in an asian sweatshop, and the workers got nearly nothing. Their slave drivers got all the profit. The same can probably be said about the shoes and clothing you are wearing.
The world is indeed f'd up.
Re:Why complain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me give an example. I could send a letter to your ISP, and say 'We believe that a user at 92.43.23.134 is electronically distributing our copyrighted documents. We demand that you turn over their name and contact information, according to the terms of the DMCA.'
Or they could say "several people at all these addresses and all these times are suspected of..."
This essentially means there will be no legal check. See the fourth ammendment to the US Constitution: "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. "
It has been fairly well established that obtaining records of that type are subject to 4th ammendment restrictions.
frob.
Re:this is not good... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you break the law, you must face the possibility that you might get caught and face persecution.
It's been this way outside the internet world since the first law were written. The internet simply provided a way in which you could hide.
If you can't deal with that, you need to a) grow up and realize the legal consequences or b) stop breaking the law.
And while you're at it, quit supporting mainstream music [eminem.com], and feel free to support labels who are independant of the RIAA. My favorite is Warp Records [warprecords.com].
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:1, Insightful)
This isn't a bad thing (Score:4, Insightful)
We always talk about how the RIAA shouldn't be sueing providers, but sueing the pirates themselves.
Well now they're doing it. Let's not get our panties knotted when the RIAA actually follows the correct legal/moral path in their struggle to survive.
Besides, I sure as hell don't recall reading any privacy guarantees in my cable modem contract.
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, power is concentrated with the people who just want to take from others, rather than the people who actually create things of value.
I got news for you: no one forces an artist to do business with the RIAA. The artist hires the RIAA to market to their product. They are a partner in the process, not a slave, despite what a lot of people want you to believe.
I'll bet most of the components in the computer you are using now were made in an asian sweatshop, and the workers got nearly nothing. Their slave drivers got all the profit. The same can probably be said about the shoes and clothing you are wearing.
Here's some more news for you: laborers don't create anything, anymore than some show-making machine "creates" things. There are two kinds of creators: the people who actually design something (or in this case, write music), and the people who organize others to design and create things. Guess who is most valuable? Wrong. It's the organizers who are the most valuable, which is why they tend to make the most money.
Re:sky.isFalling() = True (Score:2, Insightful)
Big difference. Copyright violation is a tort (civil wrong), whereas distributing kiddy porn is a federal crime.
I have no problem with mandated law enforcement agencies getting my info. I do have a problem with it being available to every jackass who thinks he's been wronged and wants to sue.
With the former (kiddy porn), a LEO would have to get a warrant - which would require some burden of proof on his part. With the latter (copyright infringment) all anyone needs is a subpeona, which requires nothing more than a "good faith" belief that one has been wronged.
Re:Come on! (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Physical ownership - i.e. you own the music CD
This is like buying a book - you decide what to do with the CD, lend it to your mates, play it in the car, your laptop whatever
2) Licensing - i.e. you buy a license to listen to an album, the CD is just a delivery medium
This is basically how most software is shipped.
But copy protecting CD's hurts the consumer in both ways.
If I own the CD outright then I'm entitled to my money back because you crippled it and it won't play in my laptop - the goods are faulty.
If I license the music then once I have the delivery medium I'm entitled to listen to the music anyway I want - but I can't because it won't play in my laptop.
Now try as I might I can't see another 'model' that the music industry can use.
Music wants to be made and the people involved must be compensated for thier skill and effort. I want to listen to a good range of music in a way that is convenient to me and I'm willing to provide that compensation.
I'm fed up of hearing that an album is deleated, or I can only get track X on this compilation. I want to listen to music that I've already heard or heard about and I'm willing to pay for it.
The challenge for the record industry is to build a buisness model on that, which sadly they show no inclination to do.
As one of my pasttimes I've run discos and compiled themed compilations for local pubs - all legal uses of downloaded MP3s as all the venues have paid thier PPL fees (This is in the UK) and yet I now can't find the one offs, the deleted tracks, the special mixes that I could on Napster.
Treat consumers like criminals 24/7 and they will start to act like criminals.
Bahh - sorry off topic a bit.
Re:sky.isFalling() = True (Score:4, Insightful)
I HATE this type of logic!!
What if this guy killed 6000 people?!
What if this guy raped your sister 6000 times?!
What if this guy stuck his finger in your ass all day long?!!
What if he traded 6000 images of churches or trees?!
He DIDN'T trade 1 or 6 or 600 or 6 million kiddie porn images - and probably would NEVER THINK OF IT!!
But you on the otherhand did think of it - and are equating this action with it. What the fuck are you thinking.
First of all these two things are not even remotely close. Second there is no point in trying to make him look like a kiddie porn pusher - and last the only reason why you would say something like this is to try to make your weak point look more valid - but instead it just invalidates your point.
First of all - anonymity should not be a guarantee against anything - but that does not mean that you should have no right to be anonymous. Just because you agree with the laws in question doesnt mean that you should claim that any and all actions of another person should be open and scrutinized by any organization or individual.
There should be the right to remain anonymous until you do something wrong.
But for God sakes - not all things that are "wrong" are the same. Pirating overpriced music from a fucked up monopolistic greedy industry (however illegal) is no where in the same solar system as kiddie porn.
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever been in a band? I'm in crappy, but fun, bands who aren't going to get major label interest. But I know what's going on around me.
In order to sign to a major label, you sign away your soul. Large labels sell 80% of music, they pay out 8-15% of profits (minus advances), and they usually own your music. If your band fails, they try to collect money from you. Small labels treat you much better, but you don't go as far.
Potential Violations != Violations (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's assume for the moment John Doe actually owns the CDs or tapes or records that these mp3s come from. This isn't so far fetched. Figure about 15 tracks per CD. That's 40 ripped CDs to get 600 mp3s. 40 CDs is not a large CD collection. And ripping 40 CDs, especially with today's faster drives, wouldn't take a 9-5 working person more than a week to accomplish.
So to legally have 600 mp3s on your machine is not far-fetched.
So assuming John Doe is in the clear in terms of ownership, how does just sharing the files make it illegal? For starters he could simply have a misconfigured p2p client. There's been a lot of discussion on various compsec boards about how this happens all the time and a person winds up sharing their entire hard drive's contents without knowing it. If this is the case with John Doe, should be be prosecuted? For having a misconfigured p2p client?
Let's say the p2p client is not misconfigured. John Doe has 600 mp3s out there for the sharing.
What legalities would be involved if John Doe were able to put up some sort of disclaimer before a user can connect to his machine. Something saying that "I legally own these mp3s. Only people who legally own the albums which contain these songs may download these files." Does that put John Doe in the clear now?
What about a simple "Authorized access only". I've been to a few security conferences and some sessions have talked about how offices should place even just those three simple words on the screen every time a user logs into a company machine. That way it becomes easier to prosecute crackers who get in. IANAL but from hearing several first-hand accounts something this simple does go a long way, legally. So couldn't it also be used to defend against someone illegally downloading mp3s off an open p2p share?
I don't know, just sharing mp3s doesn't seem like it should be a prosecutable offense.
Is this just a naive view?
What about DSLAMs? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Simple Solution for ISPs (Score:2, Insightful)
You are not generally required by law to keep user logs. Poor recordkeeping is not illegal.
That is something that traditionally varies by industry. Ask a pawn shop owner what happens if they don't keep good records.
ISPs provide a service that can facilitate criminal activities. The courts will almost certainly rule that they are required to keep some records, especially DHCP logs, which they would very likely want to keep anyway (for debugging purposes or for monitoring spam, DoS, and other abuses).
-a
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a US House of Rep report, based on IRS data. To sum it up, those that make more than $300k/yr pay 37% of all income tax collected. Those making less than $27k/yr (50% of US population) pay less than 4% of all income tax collected.
Looking at the numbers, and defining (for the sake of argument) "middle class" as the middle third, I'd say that the middle class pays less than 15% of all income taxes collected. (Numbers rounded in my post, exact numbers in link)
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:2, Insightful)
WRONG!
For approximately 99.98% of human history on this planet (according to our best geological and anthropological evidence, anyway) your inalterable equation has meant LESS than nothing. Anyone that tells you differently is just trying to break down your will to make a difference in changing these sorts of things for the better, or have already been broken themselves.
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, a distribution system IS a very valueable thing. Moving media closer to the consumer is undeniably a value added activity.
What has happened is that WHAT the most efficient distribution system actually is changed suddenly. The internet has rapidly and immediately changed the game. Previously, the physical distribution mechanism (CD's in boxes on trucks and trains headed to music stores) was the hardest part of the copyright distribution mechanism. All other phases of the process were optimized for its benefit because it was the bottleneck. When the disruption happened, the economic power in the physical distribution system was severed from economic reality and continues on by sheer inertia. The physical distribution model lost value faster than it lost power.
So it is accurate to say that power accrues to people who create value, but that does not mean that the powerful are currently the best at creating value.
Re:So go ahead...sue me! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:2, Insightful)
Creators seek the reward of fame and "making the world a better place". Organizers seek money. Later, when money is made, the creators bitch about not getting any of it. It's tragic; they deserve the money for their hard work. The reason they don't get it is a lack of foresight on their part.
Re:Hypocrits (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as the general P2P issue goes, I think that most people on slashdot would like to see the RIAA et al develop a business model that is based on something other than *criminalizing copyright violation* (which is something the DMCA does). In the US copyright is granted by Congress in order to encourage the creation of IP for the good of society. It was not considered to be a "natural right", but rather a device used to spur intellectual development. The RIAA brain trust needs to figure out how P2P can be used to enhance their business and increase the amount of music made, not attack their customers for using an incredibly convenient technology.
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the entire concept of social security? How does that help the rich, again?
THe RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:1, Insightful)
Fight fire with fire... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, RIAA wants just one line, but they would have to buy the entire overpriced "album". If Verizon is forced to hand over their digital "log file product" because of a DMCA subpeona, then they make up a stupid song and then subpeona the entire RIAA catalog, so they can search for "infringing" uses of their song lyrics.
Re:Darn you RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
While that's probably not entirely false, this is from the main article referenced:
Sounds principled enough to me. I'll leave the conspiracy theory that it's just a public front to the conspiracy theorists.
--K.
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing it might do, if it succeeds, is limit online distribution of music to truly independant music. Then we might see them lose their grip on the music industry, because people start listening to the indie bands which will be all they can legally download. I actually hope they do succeed, now that I think about it. The internet music community is now a force in its own right, and it may be ready to have its tie strings cut. More power to the RIAA - they may be doing something which will benefit both the indie bands and hurt their bottom line. Let's get a real independant music site established - maybe some music oriented university could set it up. Strictly regulate it, get signed permission from any singers who upload songs, make them free download (in ogg format, of course) and stand back.
When are people going to wakeup ?!?! (Score:2, Insightful)
When are people going to wake up and realize that
1. The RIAA is not a Law Enforcement Agency
2. The RIAA is not even a government agency
3. Giving the RIAA a blanket subpoena power over all users on the internet gives everyone blanket subpoena power over all users on the internet.
4. The RIAA should not have ANY Subpoena power, they're not a court, they're not a grand jury, they're just a business.
5. The RIAA should contact the FBI if they have info on criminal activity.
Take it in already: STOP STEALING!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
I am a programmer. Some programs I write are sold for money and are proprietary. Some others are Free Software (free as in freedom) which I give away. Why? Because I choose to license them as such.
The VERY SIMPLE point that some people don't seem to get is that UNLESS THE AUTHOR GIVES YOU THE FREEDOM TO COPY HIS/HER WORK *YOU* *CAN'T* *DO* *IT*.
Take it in and stop whining about "your rights" when all you have been doing by downloading 600 MP3s a day is infringing on the rights of the VERY ARTISTS YOU LOVE.
Yes, the RIAA has lots of money and YES it's easy to see them as the bad guy. But that's just a COP OUT!!
It boils down to: YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DOWNLOAD MP3s FOR MUSIC YOU DON'T OWN. FULL STOP.
So, please spare us all the whining and the crying and the "I wonder why they're doing this to poor old us" routine.
GJC
Re:The Problem is Slashdotters are Ignorant. (Score:3, Insightful)
The accused looses internet access and the contents of their web site, including ecommerce data if it was an ecommerce site. The ability to sue or bring charges after the fact is cold comfort if one depended on that internet connection for their business or livelihood.
The DMCA is a very bad law that violates everything due process stands for. It is open to abuses: anything from retailers trying to silence coupon sites over their prices, to kids trying to get someone they dislike off the web.
No, I don't care about KaZaa's continued existance. I have no interest in saving the big music labels (the ones that use work-for-hire contracts to take copyrights from artists in the first place) from their own stupidity and greed. Neither are worth having our constitutional rights violated by such an outrageous piece of bought legislation.
"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961).
Re:Reuters got this wrong.... (Score:2, Insightful)
- The MPAA is (rightly, IMHO) upset about people publishing MPAA
.mp3 files on the internet.
- There is no law which makes it illegal to share
.mp3 files on the internet. RIAA .mp3 files are a sub class.
- There is no law which makes it illegal to share other kinds of files on the internet. Again, RIAA
.mp3 files are a sub class.
It irks me when the MPAA tries to tag anyone who shares files, or even specificallyDon't give in to their FUD.
No. That's what the RIAA want's you to think is the point of the exercise. But what we really need to do is just make sure that none of the 600 files we downloaded (and shared) last night are being published in violation of applicable copyright laws.
If you want to mount an effective boycott of the MPAA then hit them where it will hurt. Share lots and lots of (.mp3 and other kinds of) files; make p2p a vibrant community, but boycott MPAA files: don't download them and don't share them.