Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Report From RIAA v. Verizon Case 151

Posted by michael from the music-industry-getting-to-know-you dept.
LawGeek writes "Adam Kessel has provided Greplaw with exclusive coverage of today's RIAA v. Verizon hearing, in which the RIAA is attempting to force Verizon to produce information about a user who allegedly shared files using P2P technology. It sounds as though the judge had a good grasp of the technology, and has promised to rule quickly. Slashdot has previously covered Verizon's stance on this and other P2P issues."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Report From RIAA v. Verizon Case More

Report From RIAA v. Verizon Case

Comments Filter:

  • Best line in the Greplaw Article (Score:5, Funny)

    by Amazing Quantum Man ( 458715 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @04:53PM (#4390305) Homepage
    Judge permitted amicus Motion Picture Association of America to make a brief argument which for the most part said that the Motion Picture Industry had a large financial stake in DMCA enforcement

    Or in other words... DUH!

    • Re:Best line in the Greplaw Article (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @04:56PM (#4390321) Homepage Journal
      There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.


      -- Heinlein, "Life Line".
      • I've seen that quote posted around a zillion times. But it kicks just as much as the last time I saw it. Why is it that congress can't understand this? I would assume they have to be reasonable intelligent people in order to become elected officials. And certaintly they aren't corrupt! ;-)

      • Heinlein, 1939 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Myriad ( 89793 ) <(myriad) (at) (thebsod.com)> on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:17PM (#4390853) Homepage
        ...Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.

        It is interesting to note that Mr. Heinlein penned those words back in 1939.

        function history(){

        history();

        }

      • Fill in the blanks for your own personal broad, sweeping statement:

        There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man has been alive for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of preventing others from killing him, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary personal or economic interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by natural selection, physics, or any other law of nature. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that warmongering be stopped, or antagonists be jailed, for their private benefit.

        -a
        • That would be a good analogy if someone were claiming that elderly people have an exclusive right to protection against homicide, and that all others are fair game.

          Since nobody is, in fact, arguing that, it is instead a worthless straw man.

      • This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law.

        I certainly agree with the sentiment expressed by Heinlein, and by sconeu, but how is this relevant? Heinlein wasn't a lawyer, he wrote fiction. Great quote for how you'd like the universe run, but relevant? Don't think so. Get a quote froma real lawyer.

  • Which side would the people at 2600 choose? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As you may know, the RIAA has sued 2600 magazine, and those at 2600 aren't big fans of Verizon, as they had a problem with the domain name verizonsucks.com because of copyright restrictions. Maybe they are hoping that both sides will do some real damage to each other.

  • This sounds... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by prisonernumber7 ( 540579 )
    ... so ambituous. A big company such as Verizon protecting the 'little' man. Joe Schmoe is glad that Verizon will protect him should they be coming after him.

    This seriously sounds much like a marketing plot. Yet, if it helps the cause, I am all in favour of Verizon.

    So where do I buy Verizon fan articles?

    • Re:This sounds... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Artifex ( 18308 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @05:02PM (#4390370) Journal
      Of course we all know that they're really just protecting their own interests. They don't want to become the enforcers, because it will cost them money to do so. And remember, Verizon's complaint isn't that the RIAA wants the customer's records... it's that they want them without the formality of a court proceeding. They'll easily give that information out once they get a proper subpoena, so that the court order protects them from the subscriber suing them later.

  • I agree with the editors (Score:5, Funny)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @04:56PM (#4390320) Homepage Journal
    He does seem to have a very good grasp on the underlying issues and the technology

    Based on what I read in the article I would have to agree. Particularly this sentence towards the end that says, "It sounds as though the judge had a good grasp of the technology."

  • Maybe (Score:1, Funny)

    by zoomshorts ( 137587 )
    Maybe we will get a ground breaking decision FOR P2P technology...naw, I better go back to my dream.

  • Expected discourse. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @04:57PM (#4390333)
    Geeks: You shouldn't go after the P2P software makers, go after users who violate copywrite. A tool is just a tool.

    RIAA: Ok, we'll go after users. Verizson, tell us who this guy is.

    Geeks: You can't go after the users, they have a right to being anonymous.

    Bottom line is you can't have it both ways. The law (good or bad) is being broken. Who should the copywrite holders go after? The tools or the abusers.

    • But the RIAA goes after both... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SiMac ( 409541 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @05:02PM (#4390373) Homepage
      The RIAA goes after everyone. The software makers, users, ISPs and everyone in between have the potential of being sued.

      Some geeks have a problem with one, some geeks have a problem with another.

      And some geeks have a problem with all of it. Is there really any reason why the shouldn't? Sure, the copyright is being violated, but so are user's liberties.

    • Not the point at all. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheConfusedOne ( 442158 ) <the.confused.one ... m ['il.' in gap]> on Friday October 04, 2002 @05:04PM (#4390391) Journal
      The law already provides provisions for the RIAA member companies to use the courts to seek subpoenas for the information that they want from Verizon. The DMCA put in certain provisions for an expedited subpoena process relating to certain information that ISP's have.

      The ISP's are arguing that this exception does not extend to information about users who are merely using Verizon's IP pipes rather than storing an offending file on Verizon's servers (which Verizon has control over). So, Verizon wants the RIAA companies to go through the normal channel to request the subpoena. Why? Well mainly because it's more complicated, time consuming, and expensive for the RIAA companies to go through the normal channels. This means that the number of subpoenas served to Verizon is decreased and keeps them from being swamped. If the RIAA companies don't have to go through that process then they can have crawler-bots spew out subpoena demands and swamp the ISP's with information requests.

      It's not a Verizon's defending the small guy or trying to be a scoff law. It's a "there's already a way to do this, follow the rules" thing. It's really a question of who has to bear the brunt of the costs of protecting these copyrights. It would seem quite logical that the ones generating the revenue should bear it.
    • Hrm... I had an idea. Verizon throw in a clause in the AUP saying 'If we get a P2P complaint, and we can prove that it is a valid complaint, your cut off'

      Then... RIAA: Uhm.. joeuser is doing p2p stuffs

      Verizon: We'll look into it, yup he is, *BOOT*

      Sounds more reasonable to me...

      • Re:Expected discourse. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Alex Belits ( 437 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @05:21PM (#4390510) Homepage
        Goodbye any hopes for common carrier status then.
        Right now ISPs at least can argue that they are common carrier, but the second when they assume any control over user that depends on the content he is transferring, they can't, and will be forced to share the responsibility for whatever user is doing.

        That would be e^(this "subpoena" situation) amount of trouble for Verizon.
      • And then so-and-so pays Verizon to add a note into their AUP saying, "If you arn't using this software, you're cut off!"

        This sounds like a slippery slope.

      • Re:Expected discourse. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @05:41PM (#4390636)
        > Hrm... I had an idea. Verizon throw in a clause in the AUP saying 'If we get a P2P complaint, and we can prove that it is a valid complaint, your cut off'
        >
        > Then... RIAA: Uhm.. joeuser is doing p2p stuffs
        >
        > Verizon: We'll look into it, yup he is, *BOOT*

        That'd be reasonable, and would translate to this:

        RIAA: P2P activity from IP xx.xx.xx.xx
        Verizon: *boot*

        But this case is about something different. This case is about what RIAA wants:

        RIAA: P2P activity from IP xx.xx.xx.xx. Give us his name."
        Verizon: Yes massa Rosen, here's the customer's name. Customer may pays us moneys, but we's only here to serves you massa Valenti. We's yo bitchez, RIAA/MPAA. It's our pleasure to serves!

        Except what happened was...

        Verizon: "We'll do what the law requires - namely delete any infringing material on our servers and enforce our AUP as we deem fit. The law does not require that we give you his name, so go piss up a rope."

        There's a big difference between those two things, and that's why the parties are in court.

        • Except Verizon won't even check the user account (they "haven't involved the customer" and won't until they get a court document). If it was my customer I'd check it out, and if they were violating it I'd have no problem booting them on their ass, but I wouldn't give their information without court orders.
      • Why should Verizon have to look into the matter at all?

        The RIAA should bear the burden of proof, not some 3rd party.
    • The constitution is not designed to make it easy for law enforcement to catch criminals, it is designed to protect the rights of anyone who is accussed of a crime. If they didn't routinely abuse people's rights, then the courts would not be bending over backwords to make sure the individual's rights are respected.

      I don't know anything about the law they are referring to all the sections of, but it seems to me if there were probable cause demonstrated a supena would be issued and executed. Shouldn't it be the governments lawyers (at whatever level) that would be bringing the action?

      It just seems strange unless this is only a civil matter, why is the RIAA there? What other standing would they have to issue supenas?

    • You are making an assumption the anonymous user is a criminal and has stolen the copyrighted work. Even the judge disagreed with this as an article [salon.com] at Salon stated, "The judge disagreed with Verrilli's assumption that the works were stolen"

    • Neither. They're a private entity that has criminalized copyright violation. They should go to the police. The police should then conduct their own investigation, involving search orders based upon probable cause. Should the prosecutors find the need, they should be the ones to pursue justice. If Verizon decides to pursue the matter in a civil court, then they should be required to make a motion before a judge for the information, as is the case.

      However, users of internet services should have the same expectations of privacy as users of telephone services. Though it is common for phone companies to reveal a list of ingoing and outgoing calls made by a consumer when a court order is obtained, it is entirely impossible for them to provide a record of the contents of those calls. Just because the ability exists to capture all of the specific information concerning internet use does not mean that that information should be made available. Courts should be required to get a wiretap order, and that order should not be retroactive.


    • The law (good or bad) is being broken. Who should the copywrite holders go after? The tools or the abusers.


      You almost got it right; it should be: The law (good or bad) is broken. Who should go after the copyright holders? The tools (artists) or the users.

    • Geeks: You can't go after the users, they have a right to being anonymous.

      Hmm, i dunno, i kind of think that the RIAA should go through the courts to get the records from Verizon. BUt they haven't. I don't want my personal information disclosed willynilly to anyone that asks, unless there is a very good reason to do so.
    • Going after the users through a different route would probably be a more-or-less median solution. What that route may be is up to debate, but if Verizon (hopefully) wins then it's quite likely the RIAA will simply move on to a plan B (or C, or D).

      Despite what many cynics will say, Kazaa is useful for legitimate purposes as well as piracy. Just because the postal service can be used to send illegal material doesn't mean that it in itself is illegal. The same stanza applies to Kazaa. Way back when it was less easy to trade such things online, postal was probably used quite a bit for such purposes, in addition to legal mailings. I seem to remember local BBS's and later internet sites advertising CD's full of warez etc that could be ordered and mailed.

      By the same token, Verizon is supplying the medium for perfectly legal communication, which is also being used for piracy.

      And in the end, perhaps they'll net a few 15yr-olds with a few hundred MP3's. Will the bad publicity be worth it? - phorm
    • Geeks: You shouldn't go after the P2P software makers, go after users who violate copywrite. A tool is just a tool.
      RIAA: Ok, we'll go after users. Verizson, tell us who this guy is.

      Was writing the answer into the question accidental or deliberate?

      Yes, they should go after users who violate their rights. The first step of this process is not searching Joe Blow's files. The first step of this process is the lawful establishment of probable cause to search Joe Blow's files. The fact that this takes a bit of work is, to use the formal legal terminology, "tough".

  • Also check out Salon's coverage (Score:5, Informative)

    by Software ( 179033 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @04:58PM (#4390338) Journal
    here [salon.com] (or http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2002/10/04/verizon/ print.html for the link afraid).
    • Also a new Business Week article here [businessweek.com].
    • Key lines from the Salon article...


      Verrilli also dismissed Verizon's position that the Internet provider's customers have a right to privacy.

      "You don't have a first amendment right to steal copyright works," Verrilli said.

      The judge disagreed with Verrilli's assumption that the works were stolen.


      Seems like the judge understands that just because you have music downloaded or available for download doesn't mean you didn't buy the CD.
      • Seems like the judge understands that just because you have music downloaded or available for download doesn't mean you didn't buy the CD.

        Or the music could have been released by the artist for free distribution, as many independent artists have done.

  • Verizon is not protecting a little man (Score:5, Insightful)

    by atari2600 ( 545988 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @05:00PM (#4390351)



    Verizon by its own admission is protecting the privacy of its subscribers and thats a good thing to do - sounds good and feels good. You would have thousands of companies who would want the names of Internet subscribers if an ISP gave out the name of a subscriber just like that. Verizon would be hoping that the RIAA wouldnt win this case because that would set a bad example and companies who fight for their user's privacy will stand out...so there is more at stake here for both the parties.

    I hope Verizon wins.

    • ... if an ISP gave out the name of a subscriber just like that
      The DMCA (which is law) requires them to release names "just like that". This, of course, assumes "just like that" is by means of a subpoena (you know, court-issued), such as the one they have in this case.

      It's on the books. Whine at your congressmen.
  • i have my home pc on verizon dsl. i also run kazaa on it 24/7 against an 80 gig usb drive. the 80 gig drive is 90% full, with one folder on it simply labeled "mp3".

    any way we can get the name of this user the RIAA is after? the chris tresco dod interview is weighing a little heavily on my mind right now (gulp) ;-P
    • any way we can get the name of this user the RIAA is after?
      That's the thing, Verizon doesn't want to release it, but the DMCA says they have to.

      Read the article next time.
      • uh... thanks for the obvious.

        next time, look under the obvious for the implicit joke.

        well, actually the burden is on me... i have to rephrase my posts for those who look to criticize first and laugh second.

        *sigh* can't we laugh more and criticize less? can't we all just get along? lol ;-)
      • Read the article next time.

        Articles and court cases with a contrary opinion notwithstanding your statement, of course.

        Guess what, there is a disagreement with what the law means. Even if you're a lawyer (and I know you are not) you wouldn't have the ability to say "The DMCA says so!" while it remains untested in court - especially when it's currently in the process of -being- tested and with no order by the judge.

        Legal questions are settled in court, not by an ignorant poster on Slashdot.
    • My guess would be that we can't get the name because Verizon isn't giving it out. If they did, the RIAA could just as easily go after the user instead of Verizon.
    • If your not joking about that part, I suggest you stop unless you want to share a cell with Mr. Tresco.
      • ok, i wrote a poorly formatted joke.

        my apologies to the people who took me seriously.

        but i was only joking about getting the name of the user.

        the rest is true. i share 70 gigs of mp3s 24/7 on kazaa via verizon dsl.

        and if you are saying that the US Govt is going to send me to jail for sharing music files, with all of the problems going on in the world, then you must also say, in the same breath, that the end of american civilization has begun. because then the phrase "we don't get it" applies on about 12 different levels of meaning. ;-P

        • Re:name of user? (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by unicron ( 20286 )
          We just sent a guy to prison for sharing some computer software didn't we? And that industry doesn't hold a candle to the revenue or power of the music industry.

          And by the way, 70 gigs of mp3's aint shit. There's a guy on Kazaa with something like 600 gigs of divx movie files. Read a story about him once, apparently he's the guy behind something like 60% of all movie transfers through Kazaa.

          • Re:name of user? (Score:1, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Just because some loser has 600GBs of divx hardly diminishes his 70GB share. What are you one of those l33t assholes running a dchub where only people sharing 100GB minimum can join?

            Please, 70GB is a shitload by any standard for one user to share. Hell I got more respect for someone who shares their little 500MB collection on a modem than a snob like you.
          • And by the way, 70 gigs of mp3's aint shit. There's a guy on Kazaa with something like 600 gigs of divx movie files. Read a story about him once, apparently he's the guy behind something like 60% of all movie transfers through Kazaa.

            Well, 70 gigs of mp3s translates into about 24,000 songs if one assumes 3 meg songs. 600 gigs of divx's translates into about 925 movies if one assumes 650 meg divx's. I would say the 70 gigs of mp3s is more impressive

          • industry doesn't hold a candle to the revenue or power of the music industry.

            I thought I read somewhere that the computer industry was bigger than the entertainment industry. Flexing your muscle in Congress doesn't necessarily mean you are the biggest industry.
        • I think they can and they would. It's the RIAA that is puruing this, and they would claim you are an evil pirate. That's the thanks you get for helping them market their product.

          That would be the ultimate irony if the name in question is yours. I recomend that you claim you were only trying to get back the millions they took from you by illegal price fixing. Got any receipts for CDs from the period covered by that case?

        • The End of American Civilization has begun.

          There. I spelled it out. Now, quit trying to play two games at once, and realize, you live in a single reality. Quit lying to yourself, therefore, and either (1) play by the American Government's rules, or (2) get out. Me, I actually picked both.

          Nonetheless, no matter what you pick, I expect that the same thing that takes down most criminals is the fact that they don't think their method (that is, crime) through to its logical conculsion (usually prison, death, or broken relationships). It's a distinct sign of a lack of intelligence.

          Even where it results in the criminal ruling the world (Napoleon, Hitler), the net result is (a) butt of jokes about megalomaniac little snits with various tics (b) see previous paragraph: prison, death, broken relationships.
          • hey man, all change that results in change that is positive is usually a struggle. the american revolution and the civil war turned out alright (american independence, the end of slavery). these were probably all accompanied by lawyers screaming about illegal activities. i think of napster, the riaa, kazaa, etc., as the birthing pains concerning a new understanding of intellectual property, all of which wrought by the introduction of the internet.

            look, there are 3 things you can "steal":

            1. atoms
            2. data about atoms
            3. data for its own sake.

            1. atoms: you steal a car. a car is a thing. you stole it. end of story. the way it is and the way it should be.

            2. data about atoms. amalgamated incorporated's secret formula 51x. if you steal that data and use the information to make your own production for pruchase of formula 51x, then you have stolen. stealing the information itself wasn't bad, because scientists were already using the information freely about formula 51x to research formula 52x. stealing it to make money off your own version is the badness here.

            the way it is today is that amalgamated incorporated does try to call just using that information a crime, even though it stops scientific progress. see this slashdot story. [slashdot.org] the way it should be is that use of formula 51x should be free for research, illegal for capital production of products derived from that information. we have a long way to go to fix this mess. [slashdot.org]

            3. data for its own sake. music, books, etc. we are not in gutenberg's time anymore. we live in a world where information like music and books is as transmuteable as water. in a way, information wants to be free. music is not like formula 51x. it is about nothing specifically, and is enjoyed for it's own sake. this should be free. this is what the promise of the interent is all about! the RIAA guards a world that existed before the internet. they are attempting to reverse history. let them go on with their bad selves, they can't possibly win. pandora's box is already open.

            but who will make money off of music! no one will!???

            so the future is about the status quo? things change dramatically sometimes because of new discoveries. besides, there are always alternative models for turning a dime. someone will learn how to stand at the portals that tell people what they might want to listen to, and artists or the groups that represent the artists will pay them to put their name on that portal. the artists will make money the old fashioned way, by working for it. live concerts. or they won't make money. they will do it because they love to do it. teen age boys will still try to play guitar even if they know they will never be millionaires... it was always about getting the chicks anyways. ;-P see? [slashdot.org]
    • ... and replace with alternative P2P HDD that does not offer copyrighted materials. Preferably of you pounding out various tunes on your son's xylophone, while singing through a kazoo.

      Just be sure and bury it in the middle of a state park, or before too long some bank robber is going to be taken down with your HDD as his weapon of choice...

    • that way the user can check and be aware that they're after him.
    • any way we can get the name of this user the RIAA is after?

      Maybe ... If we said, Please?

      Natty

  • Excellent. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Sri Ramkrishna ( 1856 )
    It looks like we are seeing more and more tech saavy judges who are really interested in this issue. Really though more people should be involved as it's a whole new area of law to be researched.

    Hopefully with this trend we'll be seeing more fairness in our laws and not have another Dmitry type affair here.

    I think things are looking up here.

    sri

  • In brief... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by delta407 ( 518868 ) <(slashdot) (at) (lerfjhax.com)> on Friday October 04, 2002 @05:03PM (#4390384) Homepage
    From the PDF found on this page [eff.org]:
    "The subpoena seeks limited information relating to a computer connected to the Verizon network that is a hub for significant music piracy. Verizon is the only entity that can identify the infringer behind this computer."


    "Verizon refused to comply with the Subpoena. ... Verizon asserted that because '[n]o files of the Customer are hosted, stored or cached by [Verizon],' it need not respond to the Subpoena. RIAA responded by letter, explaining that Verizon's arguments provided no basis for ignoring a subpoena issued under Section 512(h). ... Subsequent conversations between officials at RIAA and Verizon have failed to resolve the matter, and RIAA has informed Verizon that it would be filing this motion."
    The gist of their arguement goes like this:
    • Section 512(h) of the DMCA applies to service providers, like Verizon.
    • The DMCA's procedures for issuing a subpoena to Verizon were met in this case.
    • The DMCA requires Verizon expeditiously to produce the information in the Subpoena.
    • None of the arguments raised by Verizon justifies refusing to comply with a subpoena validly issued by this court.

    I hate to say it, but this time, the RIAA is right (legally). They got the DMCA passed, and Verizon is pretty much screwed here. Of course, Verizon -- AFAIK -- will not get penalties, except for possibly not providing the required information (name, address, phone) in a timely manner.

    Stupid DMCA.
    • This is a good reason for all ISPs to only keep logs of user connections for a reasonable amount of time to do analysis of thier networks, and to assist the user in technical issues. This is also a good argument for being a DHCP user, because without logs as I just stated, and no static asignments Verizon or any other ISP likely will not have the data to give to the court/plaintif as requested by the subpoena.
      • You are aware that DHCP servers have logs that can map a particular computer to an IP address? If you use cable/dsl, the DSL/cable modem has an internal hardware MAC address that uniquely identifies you as a subscriber - that's how they know which modems to grant access to. The DHCP server logs this stuff. I'm sure they can get usage statistics for each subscriber if they wanted/were forced to.

        • Re:In brief... (Score:3, Informative)

          by unicron ( 20286 )
          Exactly. Ever wondered why when you get a new nic card it never works until you call your ISP(at least where I live, anyway)? The first time you get set up they log that mac addy. This can lead to some serious headaches(great example: get a cisco 806 router to work with a cable modem. There are even rumors that some ISP's will refuse to give an ip to a cisco or other router company device, because you might have multiple computers on the network, something they want you to pay extra for.)

          As for DHCP, in my area I might as well NOT have it, I've had the same IP for close to 3 months now.
    • ...unless, of course, DMCA is found unconstitutional,
      but that would have to be determined by a court...go figure.
    • Unless, as was spoken of in the article, Verizon can raise sufficient Constitutional questions about the DMCA itself (or at least the subpoena process) that they can get the law (or part of it) repealed. This could be a very good thing, finally someone with real money is actually taking on some of the DMCA on constitutional grounds. Just because the DMCA is law, does not mean it is going to stand up to constitutional challeneges, if the law gets repealed then the fact that Verizon didn't follow it is moot, regardless of whether the RIAA followed all of the rules that would force Verizon to hand over the info.

    • Re:In brief... (Score:3, Informative)

      by jjo ( 62046 )
      How can you be sure that RIAA is right? The 512(h) subpoena depends on a 512(c) notification, which only deals with
      ...infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider...

      If the supboena depends on a bogus notification (because the allegedly infringing copies do not reside on a system or network controlled by Verizon), how can it have any validity?

    • Re:In brief... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Eric Seppanen ( 79060 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @05:52PM (#4390699)
      • The DMCA requires Verizon expeditiously to produce the information in the Subpoena.
      • None of the arguments raised by Verizon justifies refusing to comply with a subpoena validly issued by this court.

      That's not correct. The DMCA requires Verizon to identify the owners of files on Verizon's system, but only if the complaining party can identify the work being infringed. This isn't too terrible in the case of files hosted at Verizon, because Verizon can easily check that there really does appear to be copyright infringement going on.

      But it's not clear that section 512(h) applies to situations where files aren't hosted at the ISP. The reasons why it shouldn't are obvious: the ISP has no way to judge the truthfulness of the claim, and what would result would be immediate power for any copyright holder to demand the identity of an internet user at any time, with zero requirement of a legitimate claim against that user. Such a system would be ripe for abuse and harassment of users.

  • Similar, although not as well written, article here [bbc.co.uk] at bbc new [bbc.co.uk].
    • The funny part is that they constantly refer to the "RIIA".
      "If you got a letter from the RIIA ... I'd say there's a good chance that you would stop"

      RIIA lawyer Cary Sherman
      Usually I quite like BBC as a news source, but I really don't think RIIA [riia.org] deserves the bad press...
  • Does a 512(a) provider count as the same as a 512(b provider? This clearly conplicates aspects for 512(f) and 512(j) providers, but could come as a reliefe to those 512(b) and 512(q) providers. The 512(k) providers (if there are any of those still in existance) will obviously be covered under any rational ruling that also covers 512(d) and 512(g) unless it also covers 512(c)

    I hope this clears things up for you all.

  • Politics-Shmolitics (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dubiousmike ( 558126 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @05:16PM (#4390477) Homepage Journal
    You know, there are always those who argue that when someone like Saddam starts fscking with others, that instead of starting some large military campaign, why not just hire (or send) some commando types in and assasinate them.

    For God's sake, when will someone digitally take out the RIAA? DoS, hack 'em, upload trojans, something! If there were ANYONE on earth that could do so without getting caught, they'd be found here on /.

    I realize that I am being awfully generalistic (did I just make up a word?) but seriously, I am sick of these organizations messing with us.

    Sure, let's do it the legal way, you say. Just like I can write my congressman with a 10000 signatures and he'll vote the way we want. Bullshit.

    Sorry to rant. But someone had to suggest it.

    Thank goodness no one can mod me as "raving lunitic"!

    • The funny thing is that the reason the RIAA ends up pissing people off is the same reason an electronic attack would be pointless. They shun computers and they do everything they can to insure that the experience of downloading electronic music is as unplesant as possible.

      Hacking them would probably help them overall if you think about it. "Oh our system are down, you see how bad this Internet thing is, go buy CD's, they don't go down like this Internet thing." Not to mention the fact that the hacking would make them look like the victims of the evil computer geeks rather than the other way around.

      Don't do anything stupid, for your sake and for all of our sakes.

    • Re:Politics-Shmolitics (Score:3, Insightful)

      by unicron ( 20286 )
      You act like the RIAA is an artifical intelligence sitting in a server somewhere. The RIAA are fighting for their cause and their way of life. These things aren't stored on a computer. We're trying to make ourselves look intelligent and moral, not just re-inforce what they already think of us. This war will be won by us in a legal, grassroots way. People like you are the reason the majority of us aren't taken seriously. I for one would not desire to have someone like you on my side in this issue. You're negative and counter-productive.

      As for your comment on how if anyone could do it, the /. crew could, you couldn't be more wrong. Not to talk shit, but people with the skill to go where they want and do what they wish on the net..this /. is a joke. Not trying to talk shit, but it's the truth. We're seen as a collection of software pirates hiding behind the false pretense of a cause. All the TRUE hackers I know, people that are 40 now, have houses and kids and jobs, etc, people that used to be in Acid and LOD, etc, think this webpage is the scene's ultimate bad joke. Just the truth...
      • Correct me if I'm wrong... but /.'s subtitle is "News for Nerds"... not "News for People Who Claim to Be Hackers, Whether or Not They Actually Are or Were One"

        So how about not generalizing and lumping everyone who reads /. into this category.
        Maybe you're just taking "this webpage" too seriously...

      • Re:Politics-Shmolitics (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ahfoo ( 223186 )
        "This war will be won by us in a legal grassroots way"
        There is no war, they lost a long time ago. This isn't a war, it's corporate grieving. Corporations don't have parents, they have business models. These corporations have all lost their business model due to advances in technology and they're in the process of grieving their loss. I think it would all make more sense to you if you read Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's work On Death and Dying. This is not a war, this is denial of a painful reality by a wealthy family that is being played out in the courts.
        In essence, the judge is being forced to act as a counselor for a grieving family that refuses to face their loss. This is not an uncommon role for the courts and that's partly why we're seeing so much integration of mandatory mediation by counseling professionals into the court system.
        In this particular instance I thought the judge's reference to the issue of "constitutional avoidance" was very telling. The lawyer for the plaintif tried to tell the judge when his own interpretation of the facts was and was not appropriate. This suggestion that the judge's thinking is muddled mirrors the counseling situation in which the client tells the counselor that the counselor is acting irrationally when all the counselor is doing is listening to the client. As a counselor, that's the kind of clue you look for to help your client begin their recovery.

    • The RIAA isn't the REAL problem... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by theLOUDroom ( 556455 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @08:00PM (#4391323)
      it's member companies are.
      If you completely obliterated RIAA headquarters tomorrow, Sony, Universal, EMI, Warner Brothers and BMG would just create another RIAA type organization.
      It works really well for them the RIAA gets all the bad press and the public doesn't even (usually) realize who is behind something like the DMCA.
  • ripped from the headlines on Onion.com [onion.com] LOS ANGELES--The Recording Industry Association of America filed a $7.1 billion lawsuit against the nation's radio stations Monday, accusing them of freely distributing copyrighted music.

    "It's criminal," RIAA president Hilary Rosen said. "Anyone at any time can simply turn on a radio and hear a copyrighted song. Making matters worse, these radio stations often play the best, catchiest song off the album over and over until people get sick of it. Where is the incentive for people to go out and buy the album?"

    According to Rosen, the radio stations acquire copies of RIAA artists' CDs and then broadcast them using a special transmitter, making it possible for anyone with a compatible radio-wave receiver to listen to the songs.

    "These radio stations are extremely popular," Rosen said. "They flagrantly string our songs together in 'uninterrupted music blocks' of up to 70 minutes in length, broadcasting nearly one CD's worth of product without a break, and they actually have the gall to allow businesses to advertise between songs. It's bad enough that they're giving away our music for free, but they're actually making a profit off this scheme."

    RIAA attorney Russell Frackman said the lawsuit is intended to protect the artists. "If this radio trend continues, it will severely damage a musician's ability to earn a living off his music," Frackman said. "[Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich stopped in the other day wondering why his last royalty check was so small, and I didn't know what to say. How do you tell a man who's devoted his whole life to his music that someone is able to just give it away for free? That pirates are taking away his right to support himself with his craft?"

    For the record companies and the RIAA, one of the most disturbing aspects of the radio-station broadcasts is that anyone with a receiver and an analog tape recorder can record the music and play it back at will. "I've heard reports that children as young as 8 tape radio broadcasts for their own personal use," Rosen said. "They listen to a channel that has a limited rotation of only the most popular songs--commonly called 'Top 40' stations--then hit the 'record' button when they hear the opening strains of the song they want. And how much are they paying for these songs? A big fat zip."

    Continued Rosen: "According to our research, there is one of these Top 40 stations in every major city in the country. This has to be stopped before the music industry's entire economic infrastructure collapses."

    Especially distressing to the RIAA are radio stations' "all-request hours," when listeners call in to ask radio announcers, or "disc jockeys," to play a certain song.

    "What's the point of putting out a new Ja Rule or Sum 41 album if people can just call up and hear any song off the album that they want?" Frackman asked. "In some instances, these stations actually have the nerve to let the caller 'dedicate' his act of thievery to a friend or lover. Could you imagine a bank letting somebody rob its vaults and then allowing the thief to thank his girlfriend Tricia and the whole gang down at Bumpy's?" Defenders of radio-based music distribution insist that the relatively poor sound quality of radio broadcasts negates the record companies' charges.

    "Radio doesn't have the same sound quality as a CD," said Paul "Cubby" Bryant, music director of New York radio station Z100, one of the nation's largest distributors of free music and a defendant in the suit. "Real music lovers will still buy CDs. If anything, we're exposing people to music they might not otherwise hear. These record companies should be thanking us, not suing us." Outraged by the RIAA suit, many radio listeners are threatening to boycott the record companies.

    "All these companies care about is profits," said Amy Legrand, 21, an avid Jacksonville, FL, radio user who surreptitiously records up to 10 songs a day off the radio. "Top 40 radio is taking the power out of the hands of the Ahmet Erteguns of the world and bringing it back to the people of Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting. It's about time somebody finally stood up to those record-company fascists."

  • Think this is bad? (Score:5, Funny)

    by peterdaly ( 123554 ) <petedaly@@@ix...netcom...com> on Friday October 04, 2002 @05:26PM (#4390544)
    I don't see what the RIAA is complaining about.

    Have you ever called Verizon to try and get a problem with their service resolved?

    For heaven's sake, when I pay my phone bill with a check over the phone with this company, I have to talk to a human and give them all the info they need to create a paper check which they then deposit. Who their size doesn't do the electronic check thing now adays?

    Don't even get me starting with if one of our T1's at work has a problem...

    Sounds to me like the RIAA is just sore they don't get better treatment than everyone else.

    -Pete
    • Off topic:

      A lot of companies still do the completely outdated and pointless electronic-to-paper check thing... usually because of one reason: They can charge some huge "service" fee for having to print the check, which is almost pure profit for them.

      In this regard, Europe is still lightyears ahead of the US banking system. Quite a few European banks are fully electronic, no checks needed at all, with almost every personal transaction being direct account-to-account electronic transfers. No phony check clearing periods, and no lame "service" fees charged to you for actually doing something that saves the bank money.

      • Yup, I live in the UK and just today I paid my rent by Internet banking, just gave the name of my landlord's account and its number and the sort number... oh! wait, I did that the first time and just selected the right account from a pulldown list this month and entered the amount and when to pay. That's bloody complicated, isn't it? I didn't even have to leave my bed to do that (thanks to my laptop :)).

  • its like (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nege ( 263655 )
    You don't try and fight MPAA and Verizon; you get MPAA and Verizon to fight each other.''
  • Darn it! I hate both the RIAA as well as Verizon!
    Who am I supposed to root for?

  • Wouldn't it be funny... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Boone^ ( 151057 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @05:50PM (#4390691)
    if the user didn't know they were being targeted, and they were reading about the legal stuff along with the rest of us going "huh, sucks to be that guy!"

    • Re:Wouldn't it be funny... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Zordak ( 123132 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @06:11PM (#4390821) Homepage Journal
      From a New York Times article, dated February, 2003:

      "The Verizon subscriber, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison today, frequented an online technical new site called "Slashdot" under the pseudonym 'Boone^.' One RIAA laywer commented, "Anybody who reads that commie-leftist-anti-coporate-America web page and parades under an obvious hacker name like that is just asking to be nailed." In reaction to the verdict, the defendant sobbed, "It's like I just got modded to (-1, Music Pirate)." NYT internet analysts are still trying to decipher the comment."

  • This is almost as good as the Mohammed Al-Fayed VS Neil Hamilton libel case we had here (.uk) a few years ago. General opinion seemed to be "Shame they can't both lose".

    That time it was Al-Fayed, who had an interesting [bbc.co.uk] past [guardian.co.uk] (and the worst decorated shop in central London), even before accusing MI6 and the Royal family of murdering his son [mathaba.net] (which, oddly enough, cost Harrods one of their royal warrants), and being sued for libel by Neil Hamilton, after Al-Fayed claimed he took bribes to ask questions in Parliment.

    Hamilton lost and had to pay a big settlement before going to prison. Al-Fayed won, but I don't think telling a court that he bribed MPs was particularly helpful in his endless quest [observer.co.uk] for British citizenship

    So no-one really won

  • It sounds as though the judge had a good grasp of the technology...

    Hmmmmm... I wonder how the judge came to understand the ins and outs of filesharing so well. It couldn't be the same way the rest of the world learned about it, could it? *cough*

    Well, I'm sure the judge won't mind if Jack V. and co. do a little checking around on his hard drive, and maybe take a look at any logs or history files showing where he's been to on the 'net. After all, it is their God-given right to do so, no?

  • Quick fix (Score:2, Insightful)

    by deRusett ( 612599 )
    Stop sharing your files on P2P networks Accually make a Peer 2 peer netowrk each person accually buy 1 CD a year, Rip it and share songs with people on the Peer to Peer network, Files can be sent with programs like ICQ, MSN, Yahoo, AIM, ..... the list goes on, set up FTP's like we did back in the mid 90's remember?? Or just stop steeling! I dislike the RIAA as much as the next guy, But If you wrote a book, then one copy was sold and it was then photocopied 1000 times how would you feel?? you spent say 10 months writing it, 500 dollars advertising it locally, then you sell it for 30 bucks, 1 copy is sold, it costs 10 bucks to make you get 20 bucks but are still short 480 bucks. I don't want to see this guy sharing his files get busted, but I don't like P2P networks, they cause a huge drain on Bandwidth on LANs and ISP's
  • So, how many Verizon users would have a P2P client? Are they crapping themselves, or what?

    Hey, Anonymous Verizon User with a P2P client - are you worried yet? Nothing like watching a game of whack-a-mole and suddenly realising you're one of the moles. *whack*

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close