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.
These things are going to continue. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.geocities.com/digitalmilleniuml
Can't do that (Score:3, Interesting)
From the article: (Score:4, Interesting)
The recording industry asked Verizon last summer to reveal the name of a customer believed to have downloaded more than 600 songs in one day, but Verizon refused
(Emph mine.) So just based on the fact that the customer might have downloaded [any number] of songs, they have convinced the federal government to step in and force Verizon to release information to a group of record companies? This is revolting.
Re:too easy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, yeah... FP!
Sooo.... (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens if, say, I have my MP3 collection on my computer at home. I get permission to temporarily use the storage at work while doing a reformat of my computer. When I download all the files back to my computer at home, is the RIAA going to come knocking?
Two choices: encrypt the entire collection or re-rip from CD. I don't know which would take longer.
This could be good? (Score:2, Interesting)
This might end up pushing more people off Kazaa and onto more secure/private P2P's like Gnutella, etc?
Just a thought.
_____
jaylen
not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
Historically, the only way to avoid subpoenii has been to demonstrate that the information in question must remain secret for reasons of national security. This is, to put it lightly, a special case reserved for the President and other state officials.
We're not talking about the RIAA having access to your mp3 playlists, we're talking about giving the court the data it needs to make an informed and just decision.
Re:too easy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure you may get off, but it will be 25,000 dollars later.
RIAA = new nazi (Score:2, Interesting)
hrm.. maybe they will...
But I doubt it. However, they are using tactics like these to scare people, and it is working (the comment about sweating in the main post) and that is ridiculous.
We need a good encrypted filesharing app, with each box running it using a PGP key which is publically available *offshore* somewhere.. This could all be automated of course.
grumble
An idea (Score:3, Interesting)
But what if I start my own ISP and the database of customer records is indexed without any information that would be able to identify the person or phone line that's dialing in to use our Web access services?
Any payment information would be done with cash only and written on pencil and paper kept in a lockbox or safe of some sort so that no matter what a court rules, my customers remain anonymous.
Is this feasible?
Re:Hmm the new.com article (Score:3, Interesting)
example:
Left a port open,
someone else had compromised his machine,
a software product didn't install correctly, etc...
Time for a cash only ISP (Score:2, Interesting)
Old rule of life... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anything you write down, record on tape, commit to a file on your computer, or store in any way other than in the meat between your ears can come back to haunt you.
Verizon should make sure they log as little as possible - keep IP to User ID logs for not more than a day, don't log ANY actions of your proxy servers, and so on.
Then, when the *AA comes and says "We need all your logs for the past week so we can find this pirate", Verizon can say "Here's all the logs we have - the last 23 hours. Cheers!"
If you absolutely feel you must have the possiblity of accessing logs older than that, then encrypt them with a public key. Let the private key be held by an individual in another country. If you need to access the logs, you mail the encrypted log to him, he decrypts it and sends it back.
Then if you are served, you give the logs to the nice officers, and then tell your friend that you have been served. Then, even if you want the logs decrypted, your friend won't.
Let them go to East Elbonia if they want the logs decrypted.
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sharing music is not stealing (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember when George Harrison was convicted of "copyright infringment" for the song, "My Sweet Lord" - it had the chord progression and melody of an older song, "He's So Fine". The judge ruled that if every 7th note was the same, it could be copyright infringment.
Remember when John Fogerty (the former lead singer of Creedence Clearwater Revival) was sued for sounding like himself? The record company claimed that they owned the "sound" of CCR, and John Fogerty's solo album sounded like, well, himself. How can anyone take this crap seriously?
If I never buy CDs, and I copy music from my friend who does buy CDs, what has the RIAA lost? Nothing. So how is it stealing?
The fact that people are seriously saying that a "corporation" can "own" a song just shows how far newspeak has progressed.
Is he going to be charged with unauthorized possession of electrons in a particual sequence? Will he be charged with attacking ships on the high seas?
The fact that Michael Jackson's company "owns" Beatles songs is theft IMO.
I wonder which people on slashdot are being paid to spread this "sharing is stealing" meme, and more importantly, how can I sign up?
Possible silver lining? Just *possible* ? (Score:5, Interesting)
But now, with this one-two punch aimed at ISPs (see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/18/21 16255&mode=thread&tid=141 [slashdot.org])they've started annoying the big boys - corporations with real money. No ISP in their right mind wants to have to give up their user's personal info without a fight - it makes them look bad and generates a lot of bad will with their customers.
So might it be that Verizon, AT&T, BellSouth, Earthlink, etc. will start some counter-lobbying on the Hill to get the DMCA limited? Sure, they're not really doing it for the best reasons... but you know what they say about "the enemy of my enemy."
Read the court's decision (Score:2, Interesting)
Does their motive really matter? (Score:2, Interesting)
Go ahead, call me a troll and label my post flamebait. I at least write my congresscritter on a regular basis and am one of the few in my area that has the balls to call out my representative in public on issues I believe in. I have confronted him before in front of a large body of people on the DMCA, a bill he is very proud of having been involved with.
It's pathetic how loud and shrill the bitching of slashdot's resident armchair revolutionaries can get.
Re:Come on! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Self destruct methods? (Score:4, Interesting)
Assuming you run Linux, make a loopback crypto partition. However, don't just use a password for the encryption key.
Make a smallish file (128 bytes) of random uuencoded data into a file (random128bytes)
Write a shell script that prompts for your password, and uses the contents of that file with the password appended.
That way, the password is still required, but if in doubt, you can shred -u random128bytes, and you'll never be able to get it back. Knowing the password won't help you at all.
Any suggestions for improvements from the Slashdot paranoids?
Let's Call This What It Really Is... (Score:4, Interesting)
1.An attempt, and order BY the government to uphold the will of a corporation, above and beyond that of the citizens. Therefore:
2.A hostile act by the government against the citizens of this nation.
--otterpop378
If... (Score:5, Interesting)
I certainly feel I am doing nothing wrong if I download tracks I already own on CD, and I certainly own right to play more than 600 tracks. More like 6000!
Reuters got this wrong.... (Score:5, Interesting)
According to what I read in the complaint, the DMCA authorizes a publisher to subpoena the identity of an alleged copyright infringer. "...RIAA believed a computer on Verizon's internet service was distributing to the public for download unauthorized copies of hundreds of copyrighted sound recordings..."
Was the verizon subscriber targeted because he was downloading RIAA music files, or because he was publishing (offering for download) RIAA music files?
Enquiring minds want to know? I expect a retraction (or a re-write) of the Reuters quote any time now. I suspect the RIAA FUD campaign is working too well, inadvertently causing some journalist with average integrity to because a part of their FUD engine. Can a publisher assert copyright infringment charges against a posessor (rather than a publisher) of an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work?
Re:Hmm the new.com article (Score:2, Interesting)
600 files is jack shit. This is a small server. They're after the Joe Nobodies now.
Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Also true story. My girlfriend was at a wedding recently in Washington(I couldn't make it). On both sides of her were two lawyers. One worked for MS the other for the RIAA. She said they were lucky I wasn't there
Re:DMCA Reality (Score:3, Interesting)
So go ahead...sue me! (Score:5, Interesting)
With this said, let us take into consideration a suit by the RIAA against me, given that they get my name and information. A cease and desist letter? Sure, I'd probably cease, but what if I continued to share?
I'm a senior in college. I own a crappy car, rent an apartment, and have quite low income. So what then? What will they get if they sue me? Nearly nothing. They can have my student loan, my car, and my apt. Kick me off my ISP, I'll find another.
The RIAA seems to not understand that civil lawsuits mean nothing to those who have nothing. This means most college students. This means most of the file sharers.
Do you think I'd be downloading all the free music I want if I could afford it? (Yes, probably, but I'm just making a point)
on subponeas (Score:3, Interesting)
One should really be asking, why in hell would Verizon even have captured that information in the first place? If they didn't have the information, they couldn't be forced to turn it over.
As to the subpoena, how can they get a subpoena to gain information about a customer who may have done nothing wrong? I hold in my hand a box of CDR marked "CD-R DA", "Digital Audio", "for Music Use". I've paid an extra tax that goes right to the music industry because they expect me to use these CDRs to record copyrighted audio onto them. How can I be doing anything that merits a subpoena and invades my privacy if they have already accepted my money based on the expectation I will record music on these CDRs?
I hope his isn't the only wave of Subpoenas that Verizon is dreading. I sure want to see the subpoenas flooding in when people want to know why the hell Verizon snooped on their Internet use and logged this.
Re:Simple Solution for ISPs (Score:3, Interesting)
My mail server is much better run, much more reliable, and much more secure than most ISPS.
Instead of using DHCP at all, move to IPV6 and give everyone static addresses.
Give everyone a static IP and stop logging what users do. There is no need, apart from marketing private information, for an ISP to log their own users. Filter spoofed IP packets from emerging from their networks, and then let complaints about malicious user activities (DDOS, SPAM) come with a logged IP address and then the ISP under the right circumstances can track the attacker down, securely, correctly, and without violating everyone's privacy.
And if the complaint is without merit, issue a new IP at the user's request.
Re:sky.isFalling() = True (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:this is not good... (Score:2, Interesting)
No kidding. Although, in a way, it would also be a mixed blessing. Think of it this way: there's no better way for John Q. Public to wake up to all the crap and unfairness going on with the MPAA/RIAA than for his best friend to get sued to oblivion for downloading music/movies that he very well might legally own. Once that happens, just wait and watch for the headlines on your local favorite news channel. "Boy Sued For $1 Millon For Downloading Music To Replace Scratched CDs He Dropped In Shitter."
Of course, for every legitimate download there's probably 10-100 fold "illegal" downloads going on, and that's all the MPAA/RIAA really cares about. As Jay in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back so sussenctly put it, "we're going to get our MUTHAfuckin' movie check."
Re:sky.isFalling() = True (Score:3, Interesting)
It's NOT OBVIOUS that a copyright law is being broken.
That's my whole point.
Assumptions are being made and being treated as fact. For just being suspected of violating copyright law the RIAA now has the power to start collecting personal information about who you are.
That's equivalent to me going to your bank and telling them I suspect you of fraud and to give me your bank account number and contact information.
That's the kind of precedent that's being set here.
Do you want anyone with a suspicion to be able to gather sensitive, personal information about you like that?
Why Verizon fights..... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Maybe not. When companies recieve subpoenas, they often recieve some reimbursement for copying charges and the like.
My thought for the reason that Verizon was against this is because, as much as they don't want to admit it, P2P music sharing is broadband's killer app. Sure, they can brag that you can load pages faster, not have a second phone line, and that you can watch streaming video, but the main reason many people get broadband is p2p music piracy. If the RIAA makes it hard for people to use p2p, or makes broadband providers block p2p, Verizon will have fewer customers, and hence smaller PROFITS! It's one of those cases where what's good for the company is also good for the customer
Re:too easy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Like, "Vote for me, and I'll get rid of that damn photo-radar." Democracy works sometime.
Re:Potential Violations != Violations (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright violations can be either criminal or civil. It is much easy to prove a civil case.
Sharing of MP3s from CDs that you own is a copyright violation. This was made clear in the my.mp3.com case. It does not matter if either or both parties own the CD. The possible penalty for sharing a registered copyrighted work is $30K per work (per song offered, not per song downloaded).
The $30K figure is for statutory damages. Statutory damages can be awarded even if it is not shown that any one actually made any money or that the owner lost any money or even that the violation was willful. If the copyright owner can prove any of these, the amount can be higher. Statutory damages for willful copyright violations are up to $150K per work.
Sharing because of a misconfigured P2P setup may not be willful, but is still probably a violation. The final determination is, of course, up to the judge or jury. Adding warnings like, RIAA keep out! could help the RIAA show that the violation was willful. The disclaimer that you propose is basically what my.mp3.com tried and they had to pay huge amount in damages.
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:2, Interesting)
They rip off artists. Yes, Ive heard the argument about how artists agree to RIAA terms. That is because the RIAA has a monopoly over the resources to market and produce music cd's. The artists make almost nothing, maybe %15 of sales, tops. Thats why they do endorsements and concerts and merchandise. THAT is how the artists make their money. The RIAA is just a promotional machine.
But wait! $17 for a CD? If the artist only gets about 15% of that, that still is $2.55 cents out of the total. That leaves $14.55 for the RIAA. Oh, well, you know, their costs of producing cds. Blank cds arent that expensive, and remember, these guys are using production equipment and tooling to make these things, which means their labeling machines, their cd writers, every step of their industry to produce the product is done at a production level manufacturing perspective. That means, that it costs much less for them to do it than anybody else. I refuse to believe that they are spending $11 per cd on production, promotion, and shipping costs. Sorry, but its BS. I know, I know, they buy radio time initially for their music. Ok, but if the song is good, the listeners request it, so there isnt any need to buy radio time beyond the first day or two after release of the record. And I dont see many commercials about compact discs. So where does the money go?
Right into the pocket of the RIAA, and then into their lobbyists. In case anyone has forgotten, they are settling in a federal lawsuit that accussed them of putting in place illegal price controls. Settling means they are guilty. Plain and simple
Re:Come on! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Dump Verizon (Score:1, Interesting)
Your sentence must have been cut short, as you undoubtedly meant "... but lost at the District Court level, and will almost certainly take it to appeal." Verizon has a lot more to lose than the "John Doe" alleged infringer. Verizon wants to immunize itself from any activity of the users on its network, not just file sharing.
Re:too easy... (Score:3, Interesting)
I run a Wi-Fi hot spot and I don't log anything
Ranks of the wealthy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Fact is most americans are fucking rich as hell. People who complain about income tax keeping them down are such fucking whiners. "ohhh that big bad millionare only pays $80,000 a year, and here I am having to pay $20,000!"
Fact is, you don't have to pay that $20,000. You can tie up your funds too, it's just a question of knowing the tax law and a willingness to "invest" your money.
People are so ready to bitch about somone else having more. Seriously though, look at what you do have... we're all in the top 10% bracket in wealthiness in the world.
Face it, we're the rich bastards that make the laws. We're the ones that opress others with our so called "FreeMarket".
Sometimes we opress ourselves, but face it, we're the bad guys.