Slashdot Mirror
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."
As you may know, the RIAA has sued 2600 magazine, and those at 2600 aren't big fans of Verizon, as they had a problem with the domain name verizonsucks.com because of copyright restrictions. Maybe they are hoping that both sides will do some real damage to each other.
... so ambituous. A big company such as Verizon protecting the 'little' man. Joe Schmoe is glad that Verizon will protect him should they be coming after him.
This seriously sounds much like a marketing plot. Yet, if it helps the cause, I am all in favour of Verizon.
So where do I buy Verizon fan articles?
&& aemula C. ab stirpe interiit
The RIAA goes after everyone. The software makers, users, ISPs and everyone in between have the potential of being sued.
Some geeks have a problem with one, some geeks have a problem with another.
And some geeks have a problem with all of it. Is there really any reason why the shouldn't? Sure, the copyright is being violated, but so are user's liberties.
You know, there are always those who argue that when someone like Saddam starts fscking with others, that instead of starting some large military campaign, why not just hire (or send) some commando types in and assasinate them.
/.
For God's sake, when will someone digitally take out the RIAA? DoS, hack 'em, upload trojans, something! If there were ANYONE on earth that could do so without getting caught, they'd be found here on
I realize that I am being awfully generalistic (did I just make up a word?) but seriously, I am sick of these organizations messing with us.
Sure, let's do it the legal way, you say. Just like I can write my congressman with a 10000 signatures and he'll vote the way we want. Bullshit.
Sorry to rant. But someone had to suggest it.
Thank goodness no one can mod me as "raving lunitic"!
Goodbye any hopes for common carrier status then.
Right now ISPs at least can argue that they are common carrier, but the second when they assume any control over user that depends on the content he is transferring, they can't, and will be forced to share the responsibility for whatever user is doing.
That would be e^(this "subpoena" situation) amount of trouble for Verizon.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Just because some loser has 600GBs of divx hardly diminishes his 70GB share. What are you one of those l33t assholes running a dchub where only people sharing 100GB minimum can join?
Please, 70GB is a shitload by any standard for one user to share. Hell I got more respect for someone who shares their little 500MB collection on a modem than a snob like you.
That's not correct. The DMCA requires Verizon to identify the owners of files on Verizon's system, but only if the complaining party can identify the work being infringed. This isn't too terrible in the case of files hosted at Verizon, because Verizon can easily check that there really does appear to be copyright infringement going on.
But it's not clear that section 512(h) applies to situations where files aren't hosted at the ISP. The reasons why it shouldn't are obvious: the ISP has no way to judge the truthfulness of the claim, and what would result would be immediate power for any copyright holder to demand the identity of an internet user at any time, with zero requirement of a legitimate claim against that user. Such a system would be ripe for abuse and harassment of users.
314-15-9265
Neither. They're a private entity that has criminalized copyright violation. They should go to the police. The police should then conduct their own investigation, involving search orders based upon probable cause. Should the prosecutors find the need, they should be the ones to pursue justice. If Verizon decides to pursue the matter in a civil court, then they should be required to make a motion before a judge for the information, as is the case.
However, users of internet services should have the same expectations of privacy as users of telephone services. Though it is common for phone companies to reveal a list of ingoing and outgoing calls made by a consumer when a court order is obtained, it is entirely impossible for them to provide a record of the contents of those calls. Just because the ability exists to capture all of the specific information concerning internet use does not mean that that information should be made available. Courts should be required to get a wiretap order, and that order should not be retroactive.
Pax Digitalia
-a
How to rationalize theft.
Why should Verizon have to look into the matter at all?
The RIAA should bear the burden of proof, not some 3rd party.
it's member companies are.
If you completely obliterated RIAA headquarters tomorrow, Sony, Universal, EMI, Warner Brothers and BMG would just create another RIAA type organization.
It works really well for them the RIAA gets all the bad press and the public doesn't even (usually) realize who is behind something like the DMCA.
Life is too short to proofread.