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.
too easy... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:too easy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:too easy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, yeah... FP!
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:too easy... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:too easy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Like, "Vote for me, and I'll get rid of that damn photo-radar." Democracy works sometime.
Re:too easy... (Score:3, Informative)
For the first kind, the ticket always goes to the owner, and I've never heard of an owner being able to claim someone else did it. An automated ticket, of course, only refers to the second kind. A traditional driver at fault ticket happens when a police officer pulls the driver over, identifies who's driving, and gives the driver a ticket. In the current automated systems, a photo of the car is taken. Then, later, if the driver wants to say my lead-footed friend borrowed the car, he'll have to tell them the lead-footed friend's name so they can serve the ticket to him instead. There's photo-proof that the owner wasn't driving, in that case, but they'll probably hold the owner liable until the driver at the time is located.
Re:too easy... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d09/vc17150.htm [ca.gov]
That deals with civil liability- I'm too lazy to look up how traffic violations are handled.
Re:too easy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure you may get off, but it will be 25,000 dollars later.
Re:too easy... (Score:3, Interesting)
I run a Wi-Fi hot spot and I don't log anything
These things are going to continue. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.geocities.com/digitalmilleniuml
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:3, Insightful)
What about the entire concept of social security? How does that help the rich, again?
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: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: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.
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe not before their contract is signed, but once it is, anything and everything that artist records is property of the RIAA. Forever.
They are a partner in the process, not a slave, despite what a lot of people want you to believe.
Would you call a record label who refuses to release material, and only signs a contract to silence an artist that would compete with an artist already on their label a partner? What about a label that refuses to fund an artist, yet will not let them out of their contract? Are they a partner? The RIAA and its member labels do not care about artist success, creative product, or anything but cold, hard cash. They aren't partners in jack shit.
It's the organizers who are the most valuable, which is why they tend to make the most money.
No, and no. Who creates the most value in art? The person who creates it, or the person who packages it? Is the owner of the printing press more valuable than the author in creating a book? Of course not. The work exists, and has value to every single person who enjoys it. It doesn't have to reach millions in order to be valuable.
If the RIAA is so valuable, then why do they have to use artificial means such as legislation to protect what should be inherent value?
Re:These things are going to continue. (Score:3, Funny)
This got me thinking. Why not get rid of the performers all together since they are unimportant. I am a musician, and I would love to hear my booker do my gigs - really. That the music cartells have monopolized music distribution to the point where unless you kiss their nether sections it's hard to get work says that we have a problem with the music distribution mechanism not that the "Organizers" have anyinherent greater value to the process. Or maybe I'm totally off base and my booker is really hot on stage. I doubt it though.
Leave the RIAA alone (Score:4, Funny)
The RIAA produces the best music in the world like Nsync, Britney Spears, and uh, uh well my mind is blank right now on any new bands. But anyway since the bands listed above are such high caliber and will be remembered for centuries to come like Mozart and The beatles I am sure piracy has to be the real reason.
After all the RIAA is such a popular group of friendly, ethical, and hard working folks that consumers just love to buy from. They would have no incentive to boycut anyway. After all nobody even used napster back in 99 when they made record profits. Morpheous is so much more popular today and I am the big retailers are also hurting do to piracy. What they made money??? Well, uh I am sure its really still piracy. The economy is so strong right now and music is priced so low that it should just be flying off the shelves.
Poor RIAA they are the true ethical and honest victims of piracy.
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: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).
Darn you RIAA (Score:2)
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.
Simple Solution for ISPs (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't do that (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
cash money (Score:2, Funny)
Finally the money to RIAA will really start rolling in. If they can just put a few more of
their custom^H^H^H pirates in jail it'll be good times for artis^H^H^H shareholders.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
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.
Re:Come on! (Score:2, Informative)
The version of the story on MSNBC states that the person was sharing more than 600 song files.
I'd expect the MSNBC story may be more correct since it would be easier to tell that a user was sharing a large number of files instead of telling how many they downloaded.
Unless of course the user happened to download them all from the same RIAA honeypot in which case he might have a defense that they were publically available for download just as a page on a HTTP server is publically available. After all if he downloaded the songs from the RIAA and that is how the found out he downloaded 600 file then they be at fault for sharing them in the first place.
Of course IANAL and that is just my 2 cents worth.
As far as taking the music without paying for it anyone can do that over the radio and in any case I don't recall the RIAA giveing me any sort of recompense for attempting to take my fair use rights.
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: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: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.
Re:Come on! (Score:3, Interesting)
sky.isFalling() = True (Score:5, Funny)
We now live in a world where anonymity no longer exists, we have to pay for music, and an ugly 18 year old Canadian chick is at the top of the US music charts?
I need a Tums...
Re:sky.isFalling() = True (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:sky.isFalling() = True (Score:5, Informative)
And what if some cracker has rooted your machine with some trojan and is doing the downloading of kiddy porn. But the FBI only sees your IP address and when they ask the owner of that IP address (the ISP) to identify the user using that IP at that specific time, they come to you. You "claim" you "don't know anything about this" but of course the FBI won't believe that. They take your computer, your fax, all your CDs, all your disks, your home movies, go through your closets, your drawers, ask you to open up that safety deposit box you have at the bank that your spouce doesn't know about, ect...
Far-fetched? Not at all.
And as far as I can tell from the parent post, the poster isn't claiming that the internet should be a place for actions without consequences.
What we're talking about is the loss of privacy. Now any organization can subpoena your ISP claiming they saw W.X.Y.Z IP address downloading or sharing copyrighted music. They don't stop to question whether or not it's legal. (Yes, downloading an mp3 off an album you own is very legal.) The ISP, after this court's ruling, will be far more inclined to give up that information outright and most likely without your knowledge.
So now the company can go and subpoena a thousand IP addresses a week to an ISP. From that they can start to keep track of who is online and when and what they're doing. Suddly there's a database that notes who you are, your typical online hours, and what FILES (not songs, remember p2p is more than just mp3s) you may have on your computer.
Sure you might be innocent.
But they've got all this personal information about you and they've done it legally.
Is that the kind of world you want to live in?
'Cause that's where we are.
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?
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:sky.isFalling() = True (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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.
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].
That'll show him (Score:2, Troll)
Re:That'll show him (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That'll show him (Score:2)
I completely agree, but he didn't get the lesser of the two.
Court Opinion (Score:5, Informative)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA") has moved to enforce a subpoena served on Verizon Internet Services ("Verizon") under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA" or "Act"), 17 U.S.C. 512. On behalf of copyright owners, RIAA seeks the identity of an anonymous user of Verizon's service who is alleged to have infringed copyrights with respect to more than 600 songs downloaded from the Internet in a single day. The copyright owners (and thus RIAA) can discern the Internet Protocol address, but not the identity, of the alleged infringer -- only the service provider can identify the user. Verizon argues that the subpoena relates to material transmitted over Verizon's network, not stored on it, and thus falls outside the scope of the subpoena power authorized in the DMCA. RIAA counters that the subpoena power under section 512(h) of the DMCA applies to all Internet service providers, including Verizon, whether the infringing material is stored on or simply transmitted over the service provider's network.
The case thus presents a core issue of statutory interpretation relating to the scope of the subpoena authority under the DMCA. The parties, and several amici curiae, agree that this is an issue of first impression of great importance to the application of copyright law to the Internet. Indeed, they concede that this case is presented as a test case on the DMCA subpoena power.Based on the language and structure of the statute, as confirmed by the purpose and history of the legislation, the Court concludes that the subpoena power in 17 U.S.C. 512(h) applies to all Internet service providers within the scope of the DMCA, not just to those service providers storing information on a system or network at the direction of a user. Therefore, the Court grants RIAA's motion to enforce, and orders Verizon to comply with the properly issued and supported subpoena from RIAA seeking the identity of the alleged infringer.
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: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?
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.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:2)
They're monitoring P2P, not sniffing the internet (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They're monitoring P2P, not sniffing the intern (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sooo.... (Score:3, Informative)
Dump Verizon (Score:2)
Then again, this looks like a publicity stunt by the RIAA et. al. Keep pissing people off, and see what happens.
Cops not amused at drunk hacker's smiley [xnewswire.com] Weird News
Re:Dump Verizon (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Dump Verizon (Score:2)
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:Dump Verizon (Score:3, Informative)
They only sort-of tried to stand up for one of their customers. They really tried to stand up for their checkbook, which will take a big hit if the RIAA can suddenly subpoena thousands of IP #'s every week. The fact that this caused them to stand up for one of their customers was really only a side effect. Trust me, I live in one of their service areas, and they're not known as a great company. Then again, I don't know any phone company anyone actually *likes*.
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.
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.
Where's Johnny Cochrane and the Chewbacca Defense (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Hmm the new.com article (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
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.
Time for a cash only ISP (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
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.
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?
two words.. (Score:3, Informative)
Sure it is not as fast as the P2P clients, but it is slowly getting there. The more poeple use it the better it will get.
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."
Alternate newsie source (Score:4, Informative)
The Globe and Mail [globeandmail.com] also has an article about this.
Check out the scary "John Doe" clause.
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.
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?
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: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.
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.
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)
Re:So go ahead...sue me! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
CNN terminology problem? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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:The cost is complying with the request (Score:4, Funny)
If I were the ISP, I'd comply with any request RIAA gave me for customer logs. I'd send 'em every byte every customer transmitted or received.
I mean, what else am I gonna do with the half-dozen old line printers I found in the basement? :-)
Re:Obscure.. (Score:2)
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?
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:DMCA Reality (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:600 a day? (Score:3, Informative)
His machine was the server, not the client. Put a machine with a few popular songs on any sharing network and you're likely to saturate your outgoing bandwith constantly. So yes, he could've shared 600 songs in a day, by uploading them. Of course, whether he actually uploaded 600 songs in one day isn't necessary here, since they might only be claiming he made 600 songs available over the course of one day. Thus, if he'd ripped 50 cds he owned and put them up on a network, suddenly one could argue that he's sharing 600 songs.
Of course, if I were his lawyer, I'd ask to see the copies they downloaded of each song to verify that the songs were really the song the filename said it was. After all, if they didn't check, how do they know the songs weren't garbage. (Aside from the fact that they hired the artists and know first-hand that the music was garbage.)
Seriously, though, as usual the slashdot article was just a little off. It should've read he served or uploaded 600 files in a single day.
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.