SBC Fights RIAA Over DMCA Subpoenas 455
NaDrew writes "SFGate.com is running an AP article about Pac Bell's Internet arm suing music industry over file-sharer IDs. 'The suit also called to question some sections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the federal law the RIAA contends supports its latest legal actions. A spokesman for SBC said the RIAA's use of the DMCA in its legal quest for online song-sharers butts up against the privacy rights of SBC's customers.
"The action taken by SBC Internet Services is intended to protect the privacy of our customers," said SBC spokesman Larry Meyer.'" So SBC, like Verizon, is concerned about the cost/hassle of complying with all the subpoenas it has been receiving.
What chance do they have of winning this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What chance do they have of winning this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What chance do they have of winning this? (Score:5, Informative)
SBC Revenue for 2002: 34B+- change
RIAA reports total retail value of shipped CDs in 2002: 12B+-
That gives SBC a much bigger chance. And you noones going to say that SBC doesn't have lobbyists. :)
And suppose that SBC does win (or some other company for that matter) and even that particular portion of the DMCA (subpoenas w/o judges) gets killed. Yes, RIAA will reissue following proper procedure. But that's much more expensive, much more time consuming, and much more frowned upon (CA has a litigous company law, and TX just don't put up w/ that sh.t.). The RIAA's 75/day stat I heard somewhere would probably drop to something like 75/mo. In the end, RIAA loses, the DMCA loses, and Kazaa will continue. -lv
Size has nothing to do with profit (Score:3, Insightful)
AOL Time Warner, Sony, etc etc have far far more lobby groups, and own far more politicians.
Re:What chance do they have of winning this? (Score:4, Insightful)
The baby bells have been playing the political game longer than the RIAA has even existed.
The telecom industry is heavily regulated. Believe me these boys know how to play political games.
Don't need a chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose they don't have any chance of winning. Which do you think is a better PR move -- simply rolling over, as some ISPs did, or dragging their heels in favor of their customers publically every step of the way?
If you like trading music and are about to get broadband, which company would *you* sign up with?
Re:What chance do they have of winning this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:SnowBalls Chance in Hell (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? That breakup, 20 years ago, was targetted at AT&T. Even if one buys into the notion that "the government" can somehow manage to hold a grudge for two decades, why would they hold it against SBC? Their beef was specifically with AT&T. They forced AT&T to spin off a bunch of smaller, autonomous companies to conduct local operations-- the baby bells. Additionally, SBC is a consolidation of a whole mess of former baby bells and NON-bell operating companies, so they have little relation to a court action from back then.
Does "the government" despise Chevron? Exxon? Any of the other former Standard Oil companies? Same thing there. The government really doesn't care!
People need to quit thinking of the government as an entity with human feelings and sensibilities. It may be full of humans, but it's just a faceless, mindless machine.
It was inevitable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Joyce's Law [faqs.org]: As a US lawsuit goes on longer, the probability of its constitutionality being challenged approaches one.
I'm a little consfused here . (Score:5, Interesting)
How many people share connections with other people in a household? How can the riaa sue you for something your 12 year old daughter did? or your wife?
Re:I'm a little consfused here . (Score:5, Informative)
AFAIK - check your contract with your ISP.
Re:I'm a little consfused here . (Score:5, Informative)
It may be that you indemnify your ISP against actions taken against it by third parties due to acts using your connection. That is not the same as taking some sort of "legal responsibility" for acts using your ISP.
A contract *only* affects your rights vis-a-vis the other parties to the contract. It *cannot* affect your rights vis-a-vis third parties. This is a fundamental principle of contract law.
Um...wife no, children yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um...wife no, children yes! (Score:5, Informative)
Some U.S. states (actually except NH and NY appaerntly) have changed this by statute. Illinois is one... parents there are liable for intentional torts only, and the limit of liability is $1000. The average over all states is $4100 maximum liability.
Of course, these aren't torts exactly, so I'm not sure whether DMCA-type violations would be caught under these "paerntal responsibility" laws.
Re:I'm a little consfused here . (Score:3, Insightful)
one way or another, you're screwed.
Re:You are responsible for your childrens useage (Score:3, Insightful)
Great, if only... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just my 2 cents.
Re:Great, if only... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just the big ISPs? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know the RIAA is playing this close to the vest so they won't tip their hand, but it would be nice to have a hint that "smaller (and dial-up) is better."
Re:Just the big ISPs? (Score:2, Informative)
postive light? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why exactly are the ISPs so concerned with the user privacy? As an end user I'm certainly concerned with it, but you'd think that ISPs wouldn't really care that much. Fighting the RIAA will cost them money, just to protect privacy
Re:postive light? (Score:5, Insightful)
All of the ISP's know what is happening on their networks. Especially those providing broadband services, know that if the RIAA is successful in shutting down the P2P networks, it will remove a lot of the incentive for customers to pay for broadband. The cost of complying is probably minor compared to the cost of lost revenue from customers leaving those services.
Re:postive light? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know that's not a huge cost, but it could be a long term expendature. Not to mention it would just plain suck to have to hire an employee to go through your own records and tattle on your customers to a bully corporation.
I would be so pissed if I had to pay for that employee!
Re:postive light? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:postive light? (Score:3, Funny)
I would be so pissed if I had to pay for that employee!
You won't have to. It can be automated with the following simple program:
while (customer){
subpenoa(customer);
}
After all, all broadband users are obviously thieves and all P2P networks are obviously evil.
Re:postive light? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:postive light? (Score:4, Interesting)
The point is that the customers would either go "offline" or to much cheaper dialup. Seriously, except for file sharing, most people using broadband don't need anything near that speed. When they no longer have file sharing, they'll realize they are paying way too much just for quickly-loading web pages and get rid of it. SBC and other Broadband providers know this and want to make sure that any tasks requiring high-speed internet access stay in tact, so that their business offerings are seen as needed. Also, if the RIAA gets conked on the head for this tomfoolery, other people will now have heard of MP3s & file sharing, find out that it isn't (or, as for now, shouldn't be) illegal, and say "hey, I want that broadband thing to get music too." We're in tha' money. We're in tha' money. Screw the producers, 'cuz we get free music nooooooow.
Re:postive light? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:postive light? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it. The ISPs who are challenging are mostly broadband providers. Do people need broadband to check email or surf the web a bit? Nope. People need broadband for filesharing. If filesharing is completely shutdown the need for higher bandwidth comes into question. I have known average users who say things like "$40/month for broadband isn't too bad b/c I can get free music."
Re:postive light? (Score:2, Insightful)
You think that ISPs want to let their users suck 100% of their bandwith 100% of the day on P2P? Why do you think that quite a few Universities have gone to throttling/closing those ports?
Do you think that download caps and per MB charges over that cap are not to curb people from using P2P?
Re:postive light? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and no. Why get broadband at all if I can't use the bandwidth? ISPs aren't stupid. They know one of the main drivers of Joe Blow getting broadband is p2p. If you remove that driver, then why should the average consumer buy broadband?
Why do you think that quite a few Universities have gone to throttling/closing those ports?
This has nothing to do with pay/month ISPs. Most college broadband is wrapped up in the tuition costs. My guess is that the tuition is not covering all the bandwidth that students were using.
Do you think that download caps and per MB charges over that cap are not to curb people from using P2P?
No it is not to curb people from using it, but to make more money on people using it. To the guy downloading it is still a good deal for him to pay $1/100MB(or whatever they charge) and get free songs for that price. ISPs in essence become a quasi-distributor of music without having to pay for the rights. They are making tons of money off people who p2p and don't want it to go away.
Re:postive light? (Score:4, Interesting)
When I signed up for Adelphia PowerLink, they ADVERTISED fast music downloads...
The ISP almost HAS to stick up for their clients, at least show some resistance. They could face class action suits based on their advertisements.
P2P is the "killer" app that sells broadband at home as something Joe Blow wants...
Otherwise, broadband customers would mostly be techies like us, who love being able to apt-get quickly...
Re:postive light? (Score:3, Interesting)
Try downloading Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, or Army Operations on a dialup
Not to mention doing an "emerge rsync && emerge -u world" would take 2-3 times longer than the actual life of what you are downloading in the first place...
Re:postive light? (Score:2, Informative)
Universities have begun throttling thier ports because they don't make money off of you using thier network. Furthermore, most Universities offer you access with much greater upload and download capacity than your standard DSL/Cable modem. The killer app for broadband is p2p, and the universities don't care because they'
Re:postive light? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, download caps and per MB charges are to maximise profits at the ISP. It basically boils down to:
- Get users hooked on P2P
- Get users onto a $/MB billing scheme
- Profit!!!
Despite all the initial moaning about swamped bandwidth, once the ISPs realised that "???" could be replaced with "$/MB" P2P became the best thing since sliced bread.Maybe. (Score:3, Funny)
But then that was ISDN in 1996.
Re:postive light? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently, I'm the only one who says $40/month for broadband isn't too bad b/c I can get free pr0n.
Seriously, though, the reason why I got broadband was not because of free music or even pr0n. I got it because I game, I work from home occassionally, and I like having a reliable, stable, fast connection. As a matter of fact, I just recommended broadband to a friend of mine (a newbie user even) because he wanted something faster, always-on, an
Economic impact of P2P (Score:4, Insightful)
Incidently, while P2P may produce losses for the music industry (seems pretty reasonable to assume so), I'm not entirely certain that as an absolute value, it's not causing people to spend more, if on other industries. It drove the broadband revolution -- a massive change in the telcos. It produced a huge boom in demand for storage -- Maxtor and WD enjoyed a massive surge in demand for hard drives. CD burners, which had seen only lackluster appeal (and high prices) before P2P sold like hotcakes. I remember walking into Office Depot and seeing fully half of the computer peripheral section being CDR-related.
Of course, while people may be spending less per album going to the music industry, they're listening to a lot more -- the average P2P sharer has far more music than in the old days.
Re:postive light? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of two things:
1) It costs them money to comply with the RIAA demands. They need to have staff looking up ip addresses, cross referencing them with billing records, etc etc. If the RIAA starts tacking more and more requests into a single envelope that starts to get expensive.
2) Marketing. If you have a lot of broadband customers and the money to play legal games, then this is a great way to get some good publicity amongst a very attractive target demographic.
I guess i should throw in a third option:
3) They're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and their belief that a consumer's rights to privacy outweigh a company's *right* to profit.
Re:postive light? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:postive light? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about respect and loyalty from customers.
Re:postive light? (Score:3, Interesting)
A subpoena is a demand for information prior to going to court. It's trivially easy to obtain one (they're not vetted by judges) but failing to comply with a properly filed subpoena is an offence in itself.
Care to bet how long it would take me to write a script to generate a list of every IP address in an ISP's netblock, along with a couple of copyrighted track names for each one? Then you just prepend the DMCA incantation, get it rubberstamped by a clerk, and the ISP is obliged to hand over details for
Re:postive light? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, but it's issued in reference to a LAWSUIT. The DMCA allows the RIAA to issue them without going through the expense (and delay) of filing a suit to get to discovery.
Re:postive light? (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at it in a slightly different light - and ignore RIAA for the moment. If RIAA manages to coerce the bigger ISPs into turning over records of their customers, the smaller ISP's are going to follow suit. Why? Legal Precedence.
Now, assume RIAA has pulled this off, and sues the hell out of all the P2P filesharers in the USA. (Hey Pres. Bush - RIAA is out to really screw up your economy - there suing 25% of the US population into poverty.) By getting the information from the ISP's under the DMCA, you can bet it wont be long thereafter until other companies start tossing out subpoenas for other "violations." SCO? Microsoft? The way is paved, thanks to RIAA.
Then, it gets worse. The government starts, and other businesses get involved to. And soon - an individuals right to privacy is gone, and the ISP's of the US have become nothing expect a research faciltity at the mercy of courts and lawsuits.
I helped build an ISP some years back. We did it for 2 reasons - money (of course) and to give the people in the area which we lived access to information on the Internet, anonymously if they wanted. And I suspect a fair number of the smaller ISPs out there were started by people who remember back when the net was anonymous and you didnt get your life poked and prodded by marketing agencies, sales companies, RIAA, and who knows who else, because you felt like finding a tip on how to set up Slackware!
Bad dog! Play dead. (Score:5, Interesting)
(emphasis mine, added.)
Right. More like, "We are disappointed that Pac Bell has a spine, and didn't roll over as asked."
Why is it that when a (smaller) corporation decides to stand up for their customers' rights against a (larger) corporation, it's always spun as being unlawful?
It's time the DMCA was given a hard look at by the people who have a clue in the legal community, and who have the power to affect change.
That's wishful thinking perhaps.
Re:Bad dog! Play dead. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, SBC is fighting that (which is not unlawful) but they still do have "obligations under the law" to turn that information over.
The fact that we don't agree with the law has absolutely nothing to do with this.
Re:Bad dog! Play dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Without people to stand up to such pathetic excuses of legal bindings, where would the United States be today?
I can only imagine the very faint glimmer of hope trapped in the minds of the people enslaved in that future society. But alas, that "future" is not yet here, and we can all rest easy. Perhaps.
The DMCA and its ilk are tools driven to bring about a reality that no one wants to live in. If no one challenges the various aspects pertinent to how broadly the DMCA reaches into society, then there is no point in even discussing it here in this forum at all. Might as well just enjoy your coffee, shuffle along with the crowd to your nine-to-five job, and clock in another boring day.
Innovation? Deliberation? Thought? These concepts are unknown to most of the corporate figureheads who control the very media we rely on. Why play into their hands?
I want to provide a relevant url for anyone interested in seeing how a media system should act like:
http://www.indymedia.org/ [indymedia.org]
Food for thought. Have a nice day.
Re:Bad dog! Play dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Until the DMCA has been ruled on by the US Supreme Court, it's Constitutionality is still open for question.
So far, no DMCA case has made it past the low levels of the Federal court system.
Now, don't be TOO optimistic... This court upheld the Sonny Bono Perpetual Copyright Act. BUT, that perpetual copyright coupled with the insane powers the DMCA grats a copyright holder may sway them...
IMHO, I wouldn't have that big a problem with the DMCA if copyright terms were short (say 10-20 years). The way I see it, the LONGER they extend the terms, the more liberal the terms would have to be in order to meet the Constitution's requirement for limits on copyrights...
One method of attack here would be a "due process" argument, that the DMCA's subpoena power violates the Constitution's prohibition of search and seizure, without "due process".
If the RIAA had to file actual lawsuits to get to discovery, before they could subpoena, that would stop this thing cold, as it would increase the hassle and expense 1,000x.
AFAIK, the DMCA has to be the only, if not one of very VERY few laws that allows a PRIVATE entity to curcumvent the requirement to go through courts in a lawsuit to get subpoenas... I don't think the Constitution allows for this.
Subpoena power is very scary. It should be supervised by a court.
Re:Bad dog! Play dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
The DMCA would be a terrible law even if copyright lasted only one day. Here's the issue: the DMCA criminalizes "circumvention devices" -- things designed to break past copy protection or access restrictions. Selling, trading, donating, or even talking about such is considered "trafficking". And this provision does not expire.
Thus, even if a work is in public domain, if someone has put it behind any sort of access control -- say, a dumb ROT13 password scheme -- it is illegal to access the mateial (despite your legal right to copy it). Under the DMCA, copyright has been superseded by something far more insidious and far more immortal. This is of course the wet dream of both magecorporations and totalitarians.
Re:Bad dog! Play dead. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm surprised some corporation hasnt pulled out some patent or copyright and hit the RIAA with stipulations of the DMCA. It can be done easily, I'm sure an audit of their computers would reveal that they have "pirated" software.
Why is it that when a (smaller) corporation decides to stand up for their customers' rights against a (larger) corporation, it's always spun as being unlawful?
Remember, Pac Bell is one company and its not small compared to other baby bells. RIAA is multiple record companies.
It's time the DMCA was given a hard look at by the people who have a clue in the legal community, and who have the power to affect change.
Yes but those politicians love their campaign funds. They dont want to give up those donations just to repel a questionable law.
What really irks me a lot is they are using a generic term as "pirate" to describe file sharers. Last time I checked no one wears an eye patch, has a parrot on their shoulder, privateer, and says "Walk the plank!".
Re:Bad dog! Play dead. (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if the subpoena was issued legally.
Perhaps, but RIAA is only asserting that the users have violated copyright. Whether or not an assertion by one party is sufficient cause to violate the privacy of others is a legitimate question.
They got resources. Just use 'em more effectively (Score:5, Interesting)
I would personally like to see the first ISP who refuses to actually keep records of email addresses or IP numbers tied to user accounts, e.g. assign a "token" for the purposes of billing, but don't track IP's, etc, based on that token. Sell service plans that are all or nothing where everyone is throttled the same.
I can just imagine where the RIAA would be if they issued subpoenas for records that don't actually exist, or the ISP can prove they have no idea who these people are.
As long as you maintain a dynamic IP that changes each and every day, and they (ISP) don't maintain any route lists for billing purposes, how do they get you?
Re:They got resources. Just use 'em more effective (Score:2)
Re:They got resources. Just use 'em more effective (Score:2)
Re:They got resources. Just use 'em more effective (Score:3, Interesting)
What about (Score:5, Insightful)
Friday, December 3, 1999
In its first major ruling on privacy and defamation in
cyberspace, the Court of Appeals on Thursday held that an
Internet Service Provider (ISP) is merely a conduit for
information, as opposed to a publisher, and consequently
is no more responsible than a telephone company for
defamatory materials transmitted over its lines.
The Court unanimously upheld an Appellate Division,
Second Department, decision that dismissed a defamation
lawsuit brought against Prodigy Services Co., by the
father of a Boy Scout whose identity was usurped by an
unknown imposter. The imposter posted vulgar messages in
the boy's name on an electronic bulletin board and e-
mailed abusive, threatening and sexually explicit
messages, also in the name of the boy, to the local
scoutmaster.
If they aren't responsible for defamation, why file sharing?
Re:What about (Score:5, Informative)
That's not the issue here. The issue being fought by SBC is that the RIAA currently has the power to force them to turn over the identity of users for a given IP address without a court mandate.
Right now the RIAA can send a list of IP's and times those IP's where logged to a ISP and force the ISP to reveal the contact information for the user who owned that IP at that particular point in time. They can do all of this without any intervention from the courts.
SBC is fighting that... so the case that you reference has no relevance at all.
Illegal search & seizure (Score:4, Interesting)
Breaking the law to catch law breakers does not make it right.
Another thing of note.. The RIAA claims filesharing is hurting their cd sales..
Well for the % of sales they've lost they've also released many times less the amount of cd's 4 years ago when this hubbub all started out. They've created their own sales problems not the filesharers.. I have friends who download songs they hear on the radio.. then get a few more the radio would never play so they get a idea if the cd is worth buying.. then they usually go out and buy the CD.
Re:Illegal search & seizure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Illegal search & seizure (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Illegal search & seizure (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is the real reason the RIAA is scared of P2P. What your friends REALLY do, is listen to some of the other songs on the album, which are never played on the radio. When they figure out there's only one good song on the CD, then they don't buy it.
The RIAA survives by tricking people into buying 15 songs, of which only one is worth having.
Re:Illegal search & seizure (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Illegal search & seizure (Score:2)
> How is it that the RIAA can see what songs you're sharing.
The classic game netrek [netrek.org] had a lovely feature called a "cluecheck" where on some servers, you had to answer simple multiple choice questions using the in-game messenging system before being allowed to play. Can I suggest something similar for Slashdot. Here's one to get us started:
If you choose to run a P2P client/server that works by serving content to anyone who asks for it, should you expect it to know that it's the RIAA asking, and to
Re:Illegal search & seizure (Score:3, Interesting)
Anonymous FTP servers are a perfect example of giving content to anyone asking for it, without knowing who is doing the asking (other than maybe keeping logs of the IPs, of course).
The correct answer is "no."
It's all about the money. (Score:2, Funny)
2) Charge users for using the net.
4) More users want to access p2p stuff, pay for network
3) PROFIT !!!
4) RIAA sues users
5) Users stop using net
6) NO PROFIT!!!
7) ISPs oppose RIAA
8) RIAA stops suing users.
9) Users safely use p2p again
10) PROFIT AGAIN!!!
Yes, Long, but without the tricky "???" part.
This is logical (Score:3, Interesting)
Somehow though, I suspect ISPs would rather disclose the names of the P2P users the minute they get subpoenaed, and not be hassled by the RIAA, if they could get away with it
Re:This is logical (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you paranoid? This and the following quote from the story writeup:
really make me wonder about people. These P2P users are paying customers. Sure, they may take up a decent chunk of bandwidth (and the worst of them the ISPs probably do want to kick off, but they can do that or throttle them without the RIAA's help), but if there's any legal way an ISP can get away with not disclosing this information to the RIAA, they're going to do it. I mean, their goal is to make a profit, and this is a significant selling point. If you want to use KaZaA or whatever, would you rather go with an ISP that rolls over when the RIAA even breathes in their direction, or one that will fight as hard as they reasonably can to not have to tell the RIAA who you are?
DMCA VS PRIVACY (Score:3, Interesting)
Now the question becomes will they hold that copyright holders have, the ability to gain the equivalent of search warrants without the usual certification by a judge that there is cause ? Heres to hoping that the supremes hold true
At least someone is fighting (Score:5, Informative)
1)Charge less per album
-> more people prepared to buy albums to see if they like it
2)Pay the artists more
-> more artists -> more choice -> better music
Re:At least someone is fighting (Score:2, Interesting)
My question is, what happens to CD prices after the RIAA wins all these lawsuits, as they surely will?
Let's face the music (pun = intended) - distributing copyrighted works IS illegal, and if the RIAA gets its day in court to prove it, some users will lose. And, presumably, file sharing apps will go the way of the dodo.
However, what happens next? Personally, I think the RIAA will realize that they once again have a captive audience, and they'll raise prices to ungodly levels once again...simply becaus
Re:At least someone is fighting (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad reality: It is unlikely that charging less per album or paying artists more will do anything to affect the problem of "piracy" because there are plenty of people who will copy music for free just because they can. Ergo RIAA literally has no choice but to pursue infringers if they hope to preserve their business.
It just occured to me that the problem RIAA faces wi
Why so cynical? (Score:2)
No no no, you've got it all wrong--*surely* these giant corporations are doing this out of a deep desire to help their customers.
Actual text of the subpoena: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Actual text of the subpoena: (Score:5, Funny)
We understand you claim ownership of all IP addresses on the Internet. As we own every operating system currently in use, we will require a fee of fifty percent of your winnings in your lawsuits for the use of our software in issuing your subpoenas.
Thank you,
SCO
Hmm!~ (Score:2, Informative)
None other than: Dave Matthews Band
Promoted by Napster, allowed to be freely downloaded (with permission) by Napster users and now is suing the people who made it what it is today. Hows that for a thank you?
Well this is interesting for sure. (Score:2)
If someone breaks my car window, I can't subpoena everyone who owned a came
Re:Well this is interesting for sure. (Score:2)
This is entirely different. Those people who owned a camera in the area weren't *providers* for you. They weren't giving you a service.
If you were parked in a pay lot that had camera & someone broke into your car, you *could* subpoena the video to find o
Maybe they learned something from the Verizon suit (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe, after examining the Verizon lawsuit, they found a loophole?
Dude... (Score:4, Funny)
SBC Fights RIAA Over DMCA (Score:2)
TTYL
-- james
RIAA vs. The World (Score:5, Interesting)
The concept of the RIAA is brilliant. Alot of people dislike them for their heavy handed litigation, but they have little fear of customer backlash since they actually don't sell anything to anyone.
The way to approach this problem would be to publicly embarrass the labels [riaa.com] that fund them.If, for example, RCA Records [rcarecords.com] were to be pointed out in the media for being a member of a lobbying group that has made a concerted effort to behave like legal vigilantes, restrict technology irregardless of it's use, and act like all around asshats, then I bet their support for the RIAA would drop quickly.
A concerted effort needs to be made to tie the labels publicly to the RIAA's actions. Until that happens, the RIAA will continue to try to do as much damage as they can to piracy, irregardless of the collateral damage to the Internet, technology, and the constitution.RIAA Radar improved (Score:5, Informative)
People can we step back a second. (Score:5, Insightful)
p2p in itself is an awesome technology. BitTorrent is one of my favorites, it solves that problem of things like Fileplanet that make yous sit through 70 ads for 30 min while you wait to download the latest 50MB patch to fix a game you like that wasn't released finished, but half finished because the hype machine kept it going for 2 years before it was ready (1.5 before it was released)
but Kazaa, Napster, Grokster, and any other method of distributing music that was taken from a CD that was distributed as a copyrighted material is just as bad as the guys that scan in the playboy centerfolds and post them to usenet. It's theft of property/right to make money.
Just because we think RIAA is screwing the artists, and RIAA is keeping CD prices artifically high, or whatever justification of the week is tossed out, you're still stealing the music.
It's not like Napster/Kazaa negotiated contracts with the artists that allowed you the user to download music seperate and outside the distribution structure. Its not like the artists are fighting RIAA by not signing contracts for music, heck they're jumping at the chance for a record deal with 'the industry' and are happy they get the $0.08 per CD or whatever measly amount it is.
When you download a song off of kazaa or whatever the p2p du jour is, you're stealing. There isn't a justification for this other than some made up BS. You aren't 'fighting the man' because 'the man' is someone that is out to make a buck. they're not 'trampling your rights' in an attempt to enforce their valid and legal copyrights.
If half the energy was put into going after our lawmakers to get things like Copyright lenghts, patents, and all the things that have been legally approved by our legally elected representatives and making them change this, we'd get something done.
Instead we're going to make a bunch of lawyers rich, a bunch of parents whos 12 year old kids are downloading and hosting millions of songs turn off the internet because it corrupted poor johnn and jane, and we're going to get it so that anything outside of port 80 requests to certified websites will be reported as piracy activity and they'll use the PATRIOT act to hunt us down.
73 iTunes Music Store songs purchased and counting.
Re:People can we step back a second. (Score:4, Interesting)
When you download a song off of kazaa ... you're stealing
You are right in your reasoning, but while this is off-topic, I do have a problem with the word "stealing." As we know, "stealing" bits is a lot different than "stealing" a physical CD from HMV. To avoid confusion, I'd like to use the phrase "using an unlicensed copy," (or something like it) as that is more accurately representative of what is happening. So, your phrase might look like:
Other than that it looks great.
Re:People can we step back a second. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People can we step back a second. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you. But the whole situation is very much a result of the record companies themselves. Overcharging for CDs creates the demand for other business models.
I was directly exposed to their marketing strategies during the 90's. Remember those CD clubs where you'd get the first 5 CDs for a dollar. Most people thought they made their profit off of the other CDs you were obligated to purchase. The truth was that without the costs of shipping, they often made a profit from the 5 CDs for $1. You can guess from there how much made it back to the artist.
Now that iTunes has finally had a chance to set an example, perhaps the record companies will relax. But it has taken almost a decade to get them to do this. I personally know people who were working on almost a business model nearly identical to iTunes beginning in the early 90's. ZERO record companies went for it because they had their profits locked up already via overpriced CDs.
"73 iTunes Music Store songs purchased and counting."
If it weren't for the pressure generated by fileswapping, your iTunes store would not exist.
What it comes down to is most people (like you apparently) are willing go with "easy and cheap". But they've effectively had two choices up till now: expensive or free.
Refreshing honesty (Score:3, Insightful)
I've posted before that I'm tired of all of the justifications that people use for piracy. They usually fall into one of two areas.....downloading this music is my right (because it's all about me)or, the record
companies are corrupt (the civil disobidience for fun and profit motive).
Let's get something straight here. NOBODY likes the record companies. Not the consumers. Not the Art
Re:Refreshing honesty (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's suppose that car dealers, the middlemen, screwed the car manufacturers and also screwed the consumers. Suppose they charged a very high price for a car, and also severely squeezed the car manufacturer at the same time.
In this case, you very well might see people stealing cars off the lot. In large numbers.
When the dictators of Romania were overthrown, people invaded the palace and looted everything. Ditto in Iraq. For what reason did people feel some right, or at least enraged enough, to do this?
But, I'll agree in principal about piracy. It is wrong. Just like looting is wrong. But are what these regimes did okay? Is it okay that the RIAA is trying to own all of our culture? Forever?
As for two wrongs don't make a right, I would say this. Sometimes, you have no other choice. You can just lay down and take it, or you can do something about it. Is it right to kick a bully in the balls? No, I suppose not.
Back to your car dealer example. Having cars, at least in the US, is almost necessary. (I also should have mentioned earlier, let's suppose that the car dealers have a cartel or a monopoly arrangement to artificially control supply and prices.) Would people begin to feel justified in stealing cars. As the prices and control got ever worse, would larger segments of the popoulation feel this way? Would this seem analogy apply to software and piracy?
Re:Refreshing honesty (Score:3, Insightful)
What you have to realize though is that semantics are entirely relevant with this issue. You
Re:People can we step back a second. (Score:3, Insightful)
My goal is to buy music that I like, and support the artist. Unfortunately under the current system, if I buy music from the major labels I'm not supporting the artist substantially more than if I downloaded (stole, yes I agree that it's morally stealing) the song. Consider that out of the roughly ten thou
Re:People can we step back a second. (Score:3, Interesting)
Then the Sony-Bono copyright extension act was passed.
Then the DMCA was passed.
Now I consider it moral to do practically anything that helps to put the RIAA & MPAA out of business. I consider it less moral to buy their wares than to steal them.
I also consider it quite unwise to do any business of any sort with them. I don't buy Sony products of any sort. I don't buy CDs. I don't buy videos. And I argue against doing so to those who will listen.
Those who (further) corru
Re:People can we step back a second. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a right granted by the people in exchange for something. It's not a "natural right". The people have a natural right to use any and all ideas and information as they see fit, but they made a deal with the people making and compiling the ideas. That deal is, sure, you can "profit" from your ideas and information, but only for a limited amout of time, and then you have to give it us, the "true" owners of the information.
The RIAA is breaking that deal.
Broadband Bad! (Score:3, Insightful)
Strange world (Score:5, Funny)
DCMA protection for filesharing (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there anyway that one could apply copy-protection/encryption to the network itself so that anyone who isn't part of the network would have to break the DCMA in order to find the files in the first place?
Then just create a restrictive license that keeps businesses and their agents (like the RIAA) off of the network.
Due process (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think PBIS will get anywhere with the privacy argument as they're putting it forward. They might get somewhere with the jurisdictional argument, but on privacy they're going to flop. People breaking the law have no right to have that illegal activity kept private.
PBIS would have better luck arguing that that provision of the DMCA violates the constitutional right to due process. The RIAA hasn't provided any proof beyond merely their word to any judicial authority that copyright infringement has in fact occurred, and PBIS could argue that the Constitution's due-process clause trumps the provision of the DMCA that allows this and that if the RIAA wants to force release of private information then they should be required to provide at least proof that the downloaded file in fact contained a song on which they hold copyright and a legal evidence chain showing that that file in fact came from the computer for which they are requesting the subscriber's private information. It would help also if PBIS could present a subpoena from the RIAA where the file they're claiming infringes provably doesn't infringe (eg. it contains an original work not owned by the RIAA which was shared either by the actual copyright owner or with his explicit authorization).
to SBC this is about more than Users Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
The DMCA has no penalties for making an unfounded accusation. As a copyright holder I can accuse anyone I want of pirating my wares. Here are some ways it can be abused.
1 ) I get into a flame war with some bastard and go batshit crazy. I get his IP. I send a letter to his provider accusing him of piracy and demand his contact information. In accordance with their obligations under the law, SBC complies and sends me his address. I then call John Ashcroft and give him the name and address of a known AlQuaida sympathiser. Mere moments later a Homeland security SWAT team servs a no-knock search warant on his ass and shoots him for threatening them with a plastic cup. SBC doesn't particularly care about this one.
2) I am a competitor to SBC. I get a list of the IP addresses served by SBC. I send the list if IP addrressed attached to SBC and attach a letter accusing the people on that list of pirating my wares. In accordance with their obligations under the law, SBC complies and sends me all of the contact information for it's customers. I add that contact information to my list of people to send my new Ultra Low Priced Broadband advertisement. SBC is concerned about this, but it's so brazen that they can stop it in court.
2) In a variation of scenario 2 I simply buy the contact info from third parties as they persue claims against SBD clients. I then sell the compiled list to mass marketers and deprive SBC of the ability to do so. I also sell the list to SBC competitors for direct marketing compaigns. SBC is concerned about this.
4) I and a billion other copyright holders innundate SBC with accusations that their customers are pirates and demand contact info. SBC has to open a whole new department of people to answer these accusations. They spend a fortune attempting to comply with their obligations under the law. SBC is really concerned about this.
Re:The Real Reason .... (Score:2)
I've always found SBC to be drastically retarded.
Re:[O/T] How often do you get 3 different acronyms (Score:2)
Or
I was j/k about the o/t posting here on
I download like crazy too, but LEGALLY (Score:3, Interesting)
I do to. But I do not violate copyright to do so.
I download Knoppix and Gentoo ISO images.
I rsync portage trees, download and compile source tarballs of hundreds of free(dom) programs quite often.
I use bittorrent (and occasionally gnutella) to download free movies (remember that Star Trek Fan Fiction Episode reported here on slashdot a few months ago?) and cool projects (machinima fi