Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Report From RIAA v. Verizon Case

Posted by michael on from the music-industry-getting-to-know-you dept.

LawGeek writes "Adam Kessel has provided Greplaw with exclusive coverage of today's RIAA v. Verizon hearing, in which the RIAA is attempting to force Verizon to produce information about a user who allegedly shared files using P2P technology. It sounds as though the judge had a good grasp of the technology, and has promised to rule quickly. Slashdot has previously covered Verizon's stance on this and other P2P issues."

7 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Also check out Salon's coverage by Software · · Score: 5, Informative

    here (or http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2002/10/04/verizon/ print.html for the link afraid).

    1. Re:Also check out Salon's coverage by powerbarr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Key lines from the Salon article...


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

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

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


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

    2. Re:Also check out Salon's coverage by rollingcalf · · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
  2. Re:This sounds... by Artifex · · Score: 5, Informative

    Of course we all know that they're really just protecting their own interests. They don't want to become the enforcers, because it will cost them money to do so. And remember, Verizon's complaint isn't that the RIAA wants the customer's records... it's that they want them without the formality of a court proceeding. They'll easily give that information out once they get a proper subpoena, so that the court order protects them from the subscriber suing them later.

    --
    Get off my launchpad!
  3. Re:Verizon is not protecting a little man by Alex+Belits · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not a court-issued subpoena. It's a "subpoena" issued by some company without any process that involves court -- I can "subpoena" anything using that. Heck, Osama Bin Laden can write a "subpoena" to CIA for the list of people that tried to capture him, and the paper will be just as invalid.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  4. Re:In brief... by unicron · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    As for DHCP, in my area I might as well NOT have it, I've had the same IP for close to 3 months now.

    --
    Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
  5. Re:In brief... by jjo · · Score: 3, Informative
    How can you be sure that RIAA is right? The 512(h) subpoena depends on a 512(c) notification, which only deals with
    ...infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider...

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