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."
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!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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."
Best Windows Freeware
here (or http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2002/10/04/verizon/ print.html for the link afraid).
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.
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!
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".
;-P
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)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The gist of their arguement goes like this:
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.
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.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
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
Soccer Goal Plans
>
> 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.