Verizon Set Back Again in DMCA Subpoena Case 354
NickV writes "Hope is getting direr for online privacy. The US District Court ruled today that Verizon must hand over the names of the two P2P downloaders. Hopefully Verizon can get a stay on the court order by the Court of Appeals. They have 14 days. Support the EFF! Without a serious lobbying group in DC, privacy will continue to be eroded."
But then how (Score:2, Funny)
</sarcasm>
Re:But then how (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of being a bunch of arrogant shits, can't the RIAA realize that P2P will just die out on it's own if they provide a better way to obtain music. But they havn't done that really, and every step they take against P2P digs them into a deeper and deeper hole. Hell, I for one am never going to buy music again.
What they don't get is that P2P is like a hydra. Cut off one head and 3 more appear and start taking chunks off of you.
Maybe if the RIAA hadn't killed off napster, they might have a fighting chance. But the more they do against P2P, the more people realize that they are just bad people.
Even if these so called music pirates are hurting them, all they're doing is making a martyr of them, which anyone could tell you is a very very bad choice. By making a martyr they create a reason to really, really hate the themselves, and end up screwing themselves over once again.
Who makes the decisions for these people? P2P is made of people. It's not a computer bug or a virus, but millions of people. If those millions started using a RIAA endorsed P2P system, they'd make a lot of money. But instead they alienate them and that's the end of it.
I wonder which will win, the RIAA or P2P. By declaring war on P2P in the way the RIAA has, there has to be a winner and a loser. And I have my bets on P2P, and indie bands.
Plus, I think a lot of people would agree, the music industry would be a lot better without the recording industry telling us what music is hot and what music isn't, and what music we should hear and what music we shouldn't. They need to realize that their ways are over and they need to change.
common carrier? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:common carrier? (Score:2, Informative)
--ZS
Re:common carrier? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:common carrier? (Score:2, Interesting)
I saw another post here that made a great point: it's not the truly evil looking laws you have to worry about. Your civil rights aren't just go
Re:common carrier? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:common carrier? (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue at hand is not whether or not Verizon can identify customers based on reports of copyright infringement. Of course they can, and ISP can. The issue is that someone without investigative authority has convinced a court to order the release of this informaiton. Would the community be ranting about the death of privacy this much if the subpoena had come from the FBI?
Also worth thinking about: is it a violation of your privacy when your ISP hands over your information when served with a warrant/subpoena that was obtained after showing a judge that they have reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place?
But they didn't do it! (Score:3, Funny)
Stupid Verizon! (Score:2, Funny)
Wait, are they the good guys here? Long live Verizon!
Re:Stupid Verizon! (Score:2)
Re:Stupid Verizon! (Score:2, Interesting)
"wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which fills up quicker" - my dad
just slightly different
Serious Lobbying group? (Score:3, Informative)
Why dont ISPs back them? (Score:2)
Along with Colleges, Universities, rich students, paraniod people, and so on.
I mean ISPs are being sued, Verizon has plenty of money, Where the hell is IBM? They have money.
Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Or do I misunderstand the case?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
So basicaly the cops need a court order, private lobyist groups don't. Somehow this doesn't sound right, does it? IANAL but I think the right thing(tm) to do would have been the RIAA suing John Doe and the court issuing a subpoena for Verizon. If the RIAA wins this case, then there will be a dangerous precedent for copyright holders to get customer data without any sort of oversight from courts.
Bring on a "Cops Corporation"! (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course there are legal problems with my idea but continuing to do this could make such a company viable. I can
Re:Bring on a "Cops Corporation"! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if you meant that to be humorous, but I'd be VERY surprised if there weren't companies out there scrambling to do this exact thing right
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm inclined to think they should treat music/software piracy the same as they treat, say, turnstile-jumping in major cities: It's a civil offense punishable by a small (say $500) fine the first time, and it becomes a criminal offense ($5,000 fine, 30 days in the county lockup) the second time around.
I'd REALLY like to hate the RIAA. Anybody who inflicts Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, and Creed on innocent civilians deserves mucho public hatred. But, I also know that perhaps 25% of internet backbone traffic is Kazaa/gnutella/whatever, and most of what's being "shared", don't belong to the person sharing it. If you can't enforce the ownership of music, information, data.. then you have no reason to expect yours to be protected either.
I dunno. This is one of those cases where it's "wife-beater vs. town drunk"... You've got a bunch of slime-encrusted sadists bent on monetizing every aspect of american culture, and on the other side you've got a company that wants to protect it's subscribers privacy - so THEY can sell a telemarketing company the fact that you called a cancer support group last month. ("Hello! I'm calling for Bob's discount chemotherapy...")
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
It does not appear that Verizon has a problem with answering as much as just handing over information with (in their opinion) an i
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon is trying to maintain that the courts should act as a bottleneck to cut down the number of frivilous requests for identity. Otherwise, they'll spend far too much time and money even handling the requests.
They're on our side, but for very different reasons.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Civil liberties are usually eroded by justifiable actions in a specific time or circumstance, and them broadening their usage until they become "normal."
What aout you and I? (Score:2, Troll)
What stops me from say, going down a list of random people I dont like, and calling their ISPs, then getting their address and killing them all one by one down the list?
Theres no privacy at all if this is law, anyone not just the RIAA, but ANYONE can claim you are a copyright infringer.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Currently, the laws say trading copywritten music is illegal. Why are illegal things that geeks like "ok", and the authorities are "bad" for enforcing those laws..
If the people in question were downloading/uploading kiddy pr0n, i'm sure most slashdotters would be all for Verizon giving up the info.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
The question is one of due proccess. The RIAA did not present ANY evidence that this person actually did anything wrong. They weren't even ASKED to present evidence. No judge ever reviewed the merits of their request. They filed a one-page document with a County Clerk.
Would you like it if I forced your ISP to reveal who you were without providing any evidence tha
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really think that Verizon is protecting our privacy. It's really about the cost involved in processing these requests. I think the p
Write the bot. (Score:2)
Thats one way to make the law useless, write the bot which simply sends massive amounts of infringement forms, not just for people on kazaa but just going down the list of random IPs accross every possible network.
Then you could pressure the ISPs to the point that they are swamped, and let the ISPs get together to change the laws.
Also you could do this to confuse the RIAA.
Civil Disobedience.
well, why not reverse it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why would that would be different? If they say it isn't a "copyright" issue, I'd counter that and say "yes it is because you are not paying t
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not trust the RIAA with that power. Neither should you.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine, You infringed on my copyrighted files, (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I'm going to call up your ISP and they will give me your home address.
I mean all I have to do is accuse anyone I dont like of copyright infringement and suddenly their ISP is forced to give me their information.
How do you like that? Should I call your ISP up right now?
Re:Fine, You infringed on my copyrighted files, (Score:3)
If I (the guy with Eminem's greatest hit) have a legitimate reason (such as a license from Endlessly Repetitive Records), then I tell you you're mistaken and you go about your business.
Or if I know that you simply made the information up to get a subpoenae, then I
Lobbying group (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I can think of a number of serious privacy-related lobbying groups, though perhaps none with the power of the RIAA, MPAA, etc. Also, Verizon itself is not bereft of political power. Many universities and other ISPs were hoping that Verizon was big enough to win this.
That being said, I'm not as cynical as the majority here on Slashdot, who believe that the value of dollar is the only way to get things done in government. I would say a bigger problem is ignorance of technological issues among those who pass the laws in the first place.
Re:Lobbying group (Score:2)
I support the EFF too.
This is scary (Score:5, Insightful)
An Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the idea. What if anyone (I'm sure you have a copyright on something) makes a random claim that someone else is infringing on the copyright. The RIAA did this, right?
I mean, actually do it. Find a figurehead of somewhere and submit a request for the account information on whoever and claim they infringed on your copyright. Try to get the press to notice it too. Would this work?
Routine maint - Delete all the logs (Score:5, Interesting)
Theres no need for evidence, and thats the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I could say you infringed on my copyright with absolutely no proof, and they'd give me your address.
So lets begin, calling all hackers, calling all hackers, lets see whos first to write the new hacking tool, lets called it the Address Sniffer, you just put in someones IP, and wait, a few days later the program shows you an email msg from the ISP with the address.
God, I really hope this law doesnt pass, I'll have to hide my IP using proxies and whatever due to fear that everyone online will be able to sni
Re:Routine maint - Delete all the logs (Score:3, Insightful)
Presumably that information would be in a log.
Re:Routine maint - Delete all the logs (Score:2, Insightful)
If you were on a jury could you knowingly send innocent people to jail (not all roomantes did it after all)?
All the prosecution has is that each roomate had equal access to the computer, not who was actually there.
What if you run a local network and nat all your roomates with DHCP? If the HD doesnt show anything what can actually be proven?
Very interesting theoritcal (plausible defense) case!
Regardless (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if you agree that these people should be brought to justice through the use of this tactic because file sharing is wrong, this sets up a precedent for other situations which may not involve the noble goal capturing file sharers.
I expect/want this outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm actually looking forward to the DMCA's day in court, though I'm not sure this is the ideal case for it, since it combines too many gray areas of the DMCA with business-vs-privacy with the unconstitutional elements of the DMCA. Still, I expect the only possible outcomes would be a) it's not reviewed by the USSC or b) there's some setback for the DMCA here, large or small....
If it does go that far, the RIAA would be smart to simply drop the case.
Re:I expect/want this outcome (Score:2)
Re:I expect/want this outcome (Score:2)
These issues and the EFF need more attention (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me, that the EFF could be likened to organizations like GreenPeace. Everyone who has ever been on a college campus knows what Green Peace is, but incase you don't they are a group of volunteers that solicit people for supporting their cause - that cause being supporting the environment through legal actions (lobbying, etc).
Why don't we have people on campus letting people know about their freedoms, about the lies spread by the RIAA/MPAA, and about *what can be done to help* ?
Re:These issues and the EFF need more attention (Score:4, Insightful)
Tech is NOT sexy, or cute, or as in-your-face obvious as nature and it never will be. Furthermore, most of Greenpeace's stunts are designed around the principal of preventing the slaughter of one animal or another. Killing defenceless creatures == bad, worse if they're cute. Pretty damn simple eh?
Another issue that we (meaning tech enthusiasts/advocates) face is the sheer language barrier, do you realize how hard it is to explain these issues to people when they can't seem to grasp the difference between login and password? Everyone can understand Greenpeace, we learned all their terms in elementary school.
Greenpeace and environmental advocates have allies too, entities that own or oversee great expances of wilderness and preserves, huge advertising campaigns, and efforts directed at educating the children in schools to the dangers of environmental destruction. When exactly was the last time you heard about RIGHTS (cyber or otherwise) being so widely taught and examined in a school system. Our cause needs SERIOUS allies: tech powerhouses, artists, big content producers.
"Why don't we have people on campus letting people know about their freedoms, about the lies spread by the RIAA/MPAA, and about *what can be done to help* ?" We could, there's nothing to stop it, but I don't think it'd help much. There are so many things cluttering up people's lives with worry that something like a tech issue is going to be simply pushed aside by concerns about the economy, the future of the planet and so forth. After all, even tho none of use here would like it, we could just switch off and still live long happy lives.
I still maintain the only victory possible will need tech savvy people elected to all levels of government. But as to how to accomplish that, I could not begin to tell you.
Re:These issues and the EFF need more attention (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with the ACLU is that they are also mixed up in a whole pile of other issues. I agree nearly 100% with the EFF, while I *disagree* quite strenuously with the ACLU on some issues.
Call me crazy, but I am not willing to fund and organization that may use my funds for causes that I find reprehensible.
It's a sad day... (Score:5, Interesting)
I really don't see any way to destroy the RIAA without attacking their profits. The RIAA wants to turn our government into a police state just to ensure it's bottom line is well padded. The scary part of distopias like 1984 is not what is considered illegal, but how strictly it is enforced. When a private organization passes laws to protect its business model, and acts as a law enforcement agency without the consent of the people, I can't see how any attack on them, in any form could be considered immoral. We are confronted with a total hijacking of our government for the sake of profits. Artists be damned, copyrights be damned, I'm sick of this shit. That's why everyone should do everything they can to hurt the RIAA bottom line as much as possible. Buy no cds. Support live performances. Supply your (trustworthy) friends with free mp3's. The US government, especially when covered in republican parasites, will never choose the people over a lucrative corporation. Our only recourse is to not give them a DOLLAR.
Re:It's a sad day... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's a sad day... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is ... (Score:2)
You know - like - create self-organizing p2p networks and then trade files with it.
A good reason to stay away from the Internet (Score:3, Informative)
Support the EFF? (Score:2)
Is it just me? (Score:3, Funny)
Without a serious lobbying group in DC, piracy will continue to be eroded!
Is this any different than the phone company? (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this different?
Civil, Criminal, Warrant (Score:4, Informative)
When the police get a warrant, there is an impartial authority (the judge) who decides that such information is worth violating the one parties privacy.
The complaint is that there is no judicial oversite to these requests, and hence no protection for the individuals privacy.
The key point is that these people are being targetted despite not being convicted of a crime, or even charged. There isn't necessarily enough evidence to accuse them of a crime, which Verizon would like to happen first.
Re:Civil, Criminal, Warrant (Score:2)
This means anyone on slashdot can do the same (Score:2)
Because the RIAA are just a group of people, like us, we could all do the same thing.
Its like terrorism, anyone can label someone a terrorist, but does this mean everyone I call a terrorist suddenly has to get tracked by the CIA and FBI, and suddenly their address and face posted all over the place?
No. Just because I call someone a terrorist doesnt mean they actually are one, I need evidence.
Just because I say someone is a copyright infringer doesnt mean they actually are.
I hope it's not me. (Score:3, Funny)
Have the users in question been notified that they are the ones? It would suck if it turned out that it's me, and that the whole trouble is because I put my extensive "Yaz" collection up on Kazaa for a few days.
My two cents (Score:5, Insightful)
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Encryption? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think its now time to donate to freenet. (Score:2)
I didnt think I'd see the day where we'd all be forced into using freenet, but if these assholes think they can destroy the internet just to protect some fucking music files, we have to defend the internet in the only way possible.
Is it worth it to see the whole internet destroyed just because a few music companies want to make money? I MEAN THE WHOLE INTERNET?!
The music companies arent important enough to be allowed to ruin and destroy the internet
So if you want to support true annonymous connections,
What's the big deal about subpoenas? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is part of the process called "discovery," where the sides get to collect information about each other for a suit. Technically, a subpoena IS part of a legal process. You generally don't get to serve one unless you already have a case pending in court. That's why it is backed up by the power of the court. If you comply with a subpoena, no problem. If you refuse to comply, you can be found in contempt of court. If you have a problem with the subpoena, you take it to the judge hearing the case.
And that's what happened here. Verizon didn't like the ruling, so they've been appealing it to higher levels in the court system, and I'm assuming that the rest of the case is being continued until this matter is resolved.
This is just a strategic move on the part of the RIAA. They really don't believe that they're going to get any money out of these people. They knew that going in. What they're trying to do here is intimidate both ISPs and users. However, if they think this is going to stop piracy, they're wrong. I can think of a lot of ways to share music without using the Internet, and I'm not the only one.
If they manage to drive file sharing off the Internet, file sharing is just going to pop up in another format. Until they start charging a price only modestly above margin for CDs, this isn't going to end. Has anyone noticed that DVDs are tending to be much cheaper than CDs? And we all know that movies (and DVDs, for that matter) are *much* more expensive to produce than music. Right now, the RIAA is in the middle of learning a very painful lesson about economics and markets. They're lashing out at what they perceive to be the problem, but it's not going to work.
IAAL
Re:What's the big deal about subpoenas? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a lawyer, but I always thought discovery had to be part of a court case.
To me, the RIAA is trying to gr
THis is fucked up. (Score:2, Funny)
20 Goto 10.
I claim copyright. I am a incorporated llc, and this is software i created. I think that slashdot readers may be violating my copyright. I demand that Slashdot turn over the full lists of all their readers so i can sue them.
Can anyone see why they can say no?
Re:THis is fucked up. (Score:2)
You dont even have to be a company if I read the law right.
Breaking News -- Hope remains (Score:3, Informative)
1:08pm 04/25/03
Judge rules in favor of Napster follow-ons By Russ Britt (CBS Marketwatch)
In a case that could turn the tide on online piracy, a Los Angeles judge ruled Friday in favor of online file-sharing services Grokster and Morpheus, saying the two companies are not liable for online piracy by users of their service. The follow-on services to Napster -- which was forced to give up sharing of music files -- were sued by several major entertainment companies who sought to take the firms to trial. But U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson ruled in favor of the two firms. A third online file sharing service, Kazaa, is not affected by the ruling.
Maybe... (Score:3)
Probable cause in an age of wireless LANs (Score:3, Insightful)
Do You Have a Right to Hide Your Crimes? (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon isn't being asked to destroy anyone's privacy. They are being asked to deliver the identity of an individual that the state has sufficient reason to believe has commited illegal acts using Verizon's network.
The same logic applies apart from the network-centric world of Slashdot. Suppose someone broke into a Walmart and stole a rifle. If he then shot three people with that rifle, would Walmart be threatening anyone's prviacy by handing over a surveillance tape to the police? No, they wouldn't.
Right to Privacy? (Score:4, Interesting)
From an AP interview with Senator Rick Santorum on Apr. 7, 2003:
This isn't some wacko saying this. (Well, not some random wacko, anyway.) This isn't some RIAA or MPAA shill. This is a United States Senator. And we wonder how laws like the DMCA get passed?
What's in it for Verizon? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Look idiots (Score:5, Informative)
The quote from verizon's counsel says it best, "It's virtually unprecedented in U.S. law that someone can use a form to find out your identity without any judicial process."
Re:Look idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA: Hey give me the names of these two people
Verizon: Uh, get a court order
RIAA: No, the DMCA says we can get the name of anybody we accuse of stealing without a court order.
Verizon: That sounds unconstitutional. A judge should decide if your case has sufficient merit to pierce their right to privacy.
RIAA: Judge! They won't give us the names of people that the DMCA says we can have without a court order.
Judge: Okay Verizon, do what the DMCA says.
Verizon: I think you should reconsider, Judge. The DMCA is unconstitutional.
Judge: It's the law, I am not changing my decision.
Now verizon has to appeal to a higher court that the DMCA is unconstitutional. (hint: It probably is, and if it looks like this case will cause a constitutionality review by a federal circuit court, RIAA will drop the case and prevent that from happening. Does the name "Felden" ring a bell?)
Re:Look idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Look idiots (Score:2)
It's not the same as walking into Borders and yoinking a cd, since noone is really directly hurt.
And unless the downloader is making his own CDs and selling them for 1/2 price, then he's really not doing anything but looking at art.
Recording radio shows isn't illegal(I hope), this is no different.
Either way, if the listener enjoys the music, he may pay 40 bucks to see the band in concert, and pay 20 bucks for a ill-fitting t-shirt.
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, Verizon and all other ISPs are going to have to foot the bill for the RIAA's problem.
Very True (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Very True (Score:2)
Not just the RIAA but anyone. So not thousands but MILLIONS.
ISPs arent prepared to handle this.
This is like me asking the phonecompany to put a tap on your phone just because I suspect you are talking bad about me behind my back.
Oh by the way, the phone company has to pay the bill.
Re:Look idiots (Score:5, Informative)
I assume you mean this in a more narrow sense than you stated it. Note that neither of those two Verizon customers has been convicted of anything. They have only been accused. Are you saying anyone accused by corporation of doing something illegal deserves to lose their privacy?
The only reason Verizon is withholding the names is so all their subscribers. don't migrate to other services in order to prevent from being caught.
You didn't read the article did you? Verizon is fighting on behalf of all ISPs. Other services would be less able to fight this than Verizon. The only reason these two haven't been handed over to the RIAA is because Verizon objects to the DMCA.
I don't see anyone here crying about the Enron CEO being placed under house arrest with a tracking bracelet, violating his privacy
Did a judge place the Enron CEO under house arrest? Did a judge order the tracking bracelet? Did you read the article?!
Verizon is objecting to the fact that privacy can be pierced without judicial review.
Guilty until proven innocent! (Score:2)
The laws have changed, now you are guilty until proven innocent.
I think its almost time to leave America and go to a place more free, like China.
Uh, no. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you actually think that a private party should be able to acquire a list of subscribers by submitting a form, you need to take a look at US judicial history.
Verizons case here sounds quite good to me. If you want to get a list of customers who bought a book in a bookstore for example, you need a warrant, and it's pretty fucking rare to see even that stand a legal test.
I think the difference here is rather insignificant. You may say that the law was violated all you want, but unless you have proof that a court approves of, you should be SOL.
Re:Uh, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's kinda scary, and saddening, and frankly, tiring.
Re:Look idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a really stupid, oversimplified opinion.
First off we're (almost) all criminals. Have you ever got a parking ticket? Then you're a criminal. Ever publicly perform "Happy Birthday" without sending in a royalty check?
Second, you clearly didn't RTFA. This case isn't about whether Verizon ever has to turn over the info, it's about what has to be proven and what procedures must be followed for it to happen. The DMCA is attempting to lower these standards.
Third, just because someone accuses you of a criminal, doesn't mean you are one. In America, you are supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. See (2). Certain standards must be met before the police are given the right to search my house.
Fourth, the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency. Why should this information be given directly to them? They've already shown that they want to be a vigilante group. Where's the buffer that protects me from them?
Fifth, downloading mp3s is copyright infringement, not theft.
Finally, even criminals deserve a certain amount of privacy. Quote: "the Enron CEO being placed under house arrest with a tracking bracelet, violating his privacy" Actally, that not really as much a violation of is privacy as it is right right to move around freely. There aren't TV cameras inside his house broadcasting it for everyone to see, and there shouldn't be. Nor is he locked in the stocks in public square, so he obviously has some privacy left, although judging by your comment, you think he should be. That's really fucked up. Also, their had to be court proceedings in order for this to happen. The RIAA wants to be held to a lower standard than this.
Your "Well they're criminals, so fuck 'em!" attitude is really sad. It shows complete disrespect or total lack of understanding of some of the founding principles of the American criminal justice system, as well as general concepts of crime and punishment.
That attitude is them same one that got a lot of people burnt as witches. I could send you off to experience a justice system with fewer protections than ours.
Re:Look idiots (Score:4, Informative)
In the Verison case, the RIAA has assumed this person has done soemthing illegal and now wants their name. The RIAA is under no burden to prove that there is in fact any evidence he did, they only have to reach the point where they can suspect he did. In such a case, anyone (you, me, or even the village idiot) could suspect you had violated their copyright and thus request your name. Let's for example, say that a stalker was folllowing you online. In order to get your name, all they would have to do is get a little information (ip address), file a patent or copyight, and then go to Verison and claim you violated it and that they need to give you taht person's name. All that stalker would need to do is claim you violated it and Verison is forced to supply your name. If you don't see the potential abuse of this, both private and corporate, then you should pull the wool from in front of your eyes. No one thinks that Verison shouldn't supply the name if there is reasonable evidence. We all just would feel a lot safer in trusting a judge to decide what is 'reasonable evidence' as opposed to the RIAA deciding. As to the insulting tone of your post, it sounds to me like you are just taking such a hard-line stance becuase you are in fact hiding something. I suspect you have violated one of my copyrights! You have committed an illegal act and your privacy should be gone! I demand your real name!
Re:Look idiots (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, the verizon subscribers weren't convicted of anything either, just accused, so, pony up now, hypocrite.
I'm glad they're losing sales (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good for the Feds (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, this is still an ugly precedent to set. It's not about this case. It's about anyone with a copyright being able to approach a "clerk of the court" and get all of your personal information.
That's your name, your physical address (which they obviously have to keep to service your installation), and your billing information. All this occurs without a court order or the review of a judge.
Whether the recording industry has a legitimate gripe or not, it is unconscionable to toss aside centuries worth of due process precedent to catch people downloading music.
If you send your daughter off to college and one of her roommates plays around with Kazster, do you really want there to be no legal barriers in place to keep her personal information out of the hands of non-peace officers? If Joe Sleaze Ball can prove the he has a record and they downloaded it, does this give him the right to all their personal information?
It shouldn't. But under this system, it does.
In the past, that information was entrusted only to people that are held very accountable for there actions like judges and peace officers. Lawyers would keep information like that confidential because of the liability they'd be exposed to if it were abused and they were (traceably) the source. If I can sell a crappy record, does that really make me sufficiently accountable to receive the personal information of thousands of cute young college girls?
Perhaps in a perfect world.
Re:Good for the Feds (Score:2)
I think this is perfectly valid no matter the reason. (stop after precedent) Such things are being done in the name of Anti Terrorism as well we must remember.
Re:Right to Bear Technology? (Score:2)
Re:Two Faced! (Score:2)
Therefore, it's more like if Johnny X gets detention for tripping somebody in the halls, but gets a congratulation later on for stopping a bully from beating up on the class nerd. They're different, people, get the point!
Re:my 2 beefs with the music/movie industry (Score:2)
the RIAA isn't ripping off the consumer (Score:4, Insightful)
I generally don't buy CD's because they aren't worth that much money.
This is my choice, it is a free market.
Who modded paren "inciteful"? (Score:3, Insightful)
But to the AC post: The problem, as other have explained ad nausium, is that the subpoenas were not issued by a judge, but by the RIAA. If the RIAA wins this case it means that ANY company can ask for private records about YOU because they think you are violating their copyright. They don't need enough probable cause to convince a judge that you've done anything at all. This opens the system up for a sea of abuse the likes of which we have never seen.
Right here. (Score:3, Interesting)
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You'll note that this doesn't say "Congress shall make no law", "by the government" or any other POS argument