Report From RIAA v. Verizon Case

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."

Comments

Re:Best line in the Greplaw Article

[sconeu]

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

-- Heinlein, "Life Line".

Verizon is not protecting a little man

[atari2600]

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

I hope Verizon wins.

In brief...

[delta407]

From the PDF found on this page:

"The subpoena seeks limited information relating to a computer connected to the Verizon network that is a hub for significant music piracy. Verizon is the only entity that can identify the infringer behind this computer."

"Verizon refused to comply with the Subpoena. ... Verizon asserted that because '[n]o files of the Customer are hosted, stored or cached by [Verizon],' it need not respond to the Subpoena. RIAA responded by letter, explaining that Verizon's arguments provided no basis for ignoring a subpoena issued under Section 512(h). ... Subsequent conversations between officials at RIAA and Verizon have failed to resolve the matter, and RIAA has informed Verizon that it would be filing this motion."

The gist of their arguement goes like this:

• Section 512(h) of the DMCA applies to service providers, like Verizon.
• The DMCA's procedures for issuing a subpoena to Verizon were met in this case.
• The DMCA requires Verizon expeditiously to produce the information in the Subpoena.
• None of the arguments raised by Verizon justifies refusing to comply with a subpoena validly issued by this court.

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

Stupid DMCA.

Not the point at all.

[TheConfusedOne]

The law already provides provisions for the RIAA member companies to use the courts to seek subpoenas for the information that they want from Verizon. The DMCA put in certain provisions for an expedited subpoena process relating to certain information that ISP's have.

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

It's not a Verizon's defending the small guy or trying to be a scoff law. It's a "there's already a way to do this, follow the rules" thing. It's really a question of who has to bear the brunt of the costs of protecting these copyrights. It would seem quite logical that the ones generating the revenue should bear it.

Re:Expected discourse.

[Tackhead]

> Hrm... I had an idea. Verizon throw in a clause in the AUP saying 'If we get a P2P complaint, and we can prove that it is a valid complaint, your cut off'
>
> Then... RIAA: Uhm.. joeuser is doing p2p stuffs
>
> Verizon: We'll look into it, yup he is, *BOOT*

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

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

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

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

Except what happened was...

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

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