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

Best line in the Greplaw Article

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Judge permitted amicus Motion Picture Association of America to make a brief argument which for the most part said that the Motion Picture Industry had a large financial stake in DMCA enforcement

Or in other words... DUH!

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".

I agree with the editors

[L. VeGas]

He does seem to have a very good grasp on the underlying issues and the technology

Based on what I read in the article I would have to agree. Particularly this sentence towards the end that says, "It sounds as though the judge had a good grasp of the technology."

Expected discourse.

[Kenja]

Geeks: You shouldn't go after the P2P software makers, go after users who violate copywrite. A tool is just a tool.

RIAA: Ok, we'll go after users. Verizson, tell us who this guy is.

Geeks: You can't go after the users, they have a right to being anonymous.

Bottom line is you can't have it both ways. The law (good or bad) is being broken. Who should the copywrite holders go after? The tools or the abusers.

Re:Expected discourse.

[Alex Belits]

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.

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.

Also check out Salon's coverage

[Software]

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

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.

Re:Verizon is not protecting a little man

[Alex Belits]

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.

Re:This sounds...

[Artifex]

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.

name of user?

[circletimessquare]

i have my home pc on verizon dsl. i also run kazaa on it 24/7 against an 80 gig usb drive. the 80 gig drive is 90% full, with one folder on it simply labeled "mp3".

any way we can get the name of this user the RIAA is after? the chris tresco dod interview is weighing a little heavily on my mind right now (gulp) ;-P

Re:name of user?

[Gerry Gleason]

If your not joking about that part, I suggest you stop unless you want to share a cell with Mr. Tresco.

But the RIAA goes after both...

[SiMac]

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.

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.

Re:In brief...

[unicron]

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.

Re:In brief...

[jjo]

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?

Re:In brief...

[Eric Seppanen]

• 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.

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.

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.

Politics-Shmolitics

[dubiousmike]

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"!

Re:Politics-Shmolitics

[unicron]

You act like the RIAA is an artifical intelligence sitting in a server somewhere. The RIAA are fighting for their cause and their way of life. These things aren't stored on a computer. We're trying to make ourselves look intelligent and moral, not just re-inforce what they already think of us. This war will be won by us in a legal, grassroots way. People like you are the reason the majority of us aren't taken seriously. I for one would not desire to have someone like you on my side in this issue. You're negative and counter-productive.

As for your comment on how if anyone could do it, the /. crew could, you couldn't be more wrong. Not to talk shit, but people with the skill to go where they want and do what they wish on the net..this /. is a joke. Not trying to talk shit, but it's the truth. We're seen as a collection of software pirates hiding behind the false pretense of a cause. All the TRUE hackers I know, people that are 40 now, have houses and kids and jobs, etc, people that used to be in Acid and LOD, etc, think this webpage is the scene's ultimate bad joke. Just the truth...

Re:Politics-Shmolitics

[ahfoo]

"This war will be won by us in a legal grassroots way"
There is no war, they lost a long time ago. This isn't a war, it's corporate grieving. Corporations don't have parents, they have business models. These corporations have all lost their business model due to advances in technology and they're in the process of grieving their loss. I think it would all make more sense to you if you read Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's work On Death and Dying. This is not a war, this is denial of a painful reality by a wealthy family that is being played out in the courts.
In essence, the judge is being forced to act as a counselor for a grieving family that refuses to face their loss. This is not an uncommon role for the courts and that's partly why we're seeing so much integration of mandatory mediation by counseling professionals into the court system.
In this particular instance I thought the judge's reference to the issue of "constitutional avoidance" was very telling. The lawyer for the plaintif tried to tell the judge when his own interpretation of the facts was and was not appropriate. This suggestion that the judge's thinking is muddled mirrors the counseling situation in which the client tells the counselor that the counselor is acting irrationally when all the counselor is doing is listening to the client. As a counselor, that's the kind of clue you look for to help your client begin their recovery.

Think this is bad?

[peterdaly]

I don't see what the RIAA is complaining about.

Have you ever called Verizon to try and get a problem with their service resolved?

For heaven's sake, when I pay my phone bill with a check over the phone with this company, I have to talk to a human and give them all the info they need to create a paper check which they then deposit. Who their size doesn't do the electronic check thing now adays?

Don't even get me starting with if one of our T1's at work has a problem...

Sounds to me like the RIAA is just sore they don't get better treatment than everyone else.

-Pete

Wouldn't it be funny...

[Boone^]

if the user didn't know they were being targeted, and they were reading about the legal stuff along with the rest of us going "huh, sucks to be that guy!"

Re:Wouldn't it be funny...

[Zordak]

From a New York Times article, dated February, 2003:

"The Verizon subscriber, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison today, frequented an online technical new site called "Slashdot" under the pseudonym 'Boone^.' One RIAA laywer commented, "Anybody who reads that commie-leftist-anti-coporate-America web page and parades under an obvious hacker name like that is just asking to be nailed." In reaction to the verdict, the defendant sobbed, "It's like I just got modded to (-1, Music Pirate)." NYT internet analysts are still trying to decipher the comment."

Heinlein, 1939

[Myriad]

...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.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Heinlein penned those words back in 1939.

function history(){

history();

}

Re:T H E E N D O F A M E R I C A N C I V I L I Z A

[circletimessquare]

hey man, all change that results in change that is positive is usually a struggle. the american revolution and the civil war turned out alright (american independence, the end of slavery). these were probably all accompanied by lawyers screaming about illegal activities. i think of napster, the riaa, kazaa, etc., as the birthing pains concerning a new understanding of intellectual property, all of which wrought by the introduction of the internet.

look, there are 3 things you can "steal":

1. atoms
2. data about atoms
3. data for its own sake.

1. atoms: you steal a car. a car is a thing. you stole it. end of story. the way it is and the way it should be.

2. data about atoms. amalgamated incorporated's secret formula 51x. if you steal that data and use the information to make your own production for pruchase of formula 51x, then you have stolen. stealing the information itself wasn't bad, because scientists were already using the information freely about formula 51x to research formula 52x. stealing it to make money off your own version is the badness here.

the way it is today is that amalgamated incorporated does try to call just using that information a crime, even though it stops scientific progress. see this slashdot story. the way it should be is that use of formula 51x should be free for research, illegal for capital production of products derived from that information. we have a long way to go to fix this mess.

3. data for its own sake. music, books, etc. we are not in gutenberg's time anymore. we live in a world where information like music and books is as transmuteable as water. in a way, information wants to be free. music is not like formula 51x. it is about nothing specifically, and is enjoyed for it's own sake. this should be free. this is what the promise of the interent is all about! the RIAA guards a world that existed before the internet. they are attempting to reverse history. let them go on with their bad selves, they can't possibly win. pandora's box is already open.

but who will make money off of music! no one will!???

so the future is about the status quo? things change dramatically sometimes because of new discoveries. besides, there are always alternative models for turning a dime. someone will learn how to stand at the portals that tell people what they might want to listen to, and artists or the groups that represent the artists will pay them to put their name on that portal. the artists will make money the old fashioned way, by working for it. live concerts. or they won't make money. they will do it because they love to do it. teen age boys will still try to play guitar even if they know they will never be millionaires... it was always about getting the chicks anyways. ;-P see?

The RIAA isn't the REAL problem...

[theLOUDroom]

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.

Re:Heck, 2600 is probably behind this

[Dalcius]

Received: from hax0rb0xen [2600.com] by mail.riaa.com
Fri, 13 Sept 2002 12:40:53 -0500
From: "Bob Jones" <bjones@riaa.com>
To: "Hillary Rosen" <hrosen@riaa.com>
Subject: Copyright violator on Verizon
Date: Fri, 13 Sept 2002 12:40:59 -0500

Mistress,

We have detected a p2p file-swapper on Verizon networks currently sharing 20GB of Brittany Spears, the Backstreet Boys, N'Sync, Celine Dion and Jennifer Lopez. What should we do?