Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Loses Suit Over Subpoena of Subscriber Info
Brian Golden writes "As a result of a suit filed by the RIAA, the identity of a Verizon customer with a penchant for mp3's was ordered to be released. Man, how many people are now sweating bullets trying to remember what they downloaded?" News.com.com also has a story. If you've forgotten about this case, see our earlier story. Verizon wasn't making any sort of principled stand to protect its users' privacy, it just wanted to avoid the costs of complying with the (many) subpoenas it will now receive.
Not exactly, once they get a hold of your computer, they can figure it all out.
Stop keeping logs of users. Just issue DHCP at random and be done with it.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
This guy downloaded over 600 songs in a day! If and only if this behavior was not limited to a single day, then it is obvious this guy was pirating music. He took music without paying for it, plain and simple.
Of course, if he owned the CDs, that is a different story, but the probability of the guy (it has to be a guy!) owning those CDs just isn't there.
This means that the (MP|RI)AA can serve as many goddamn subpoenas as they want and the ISP's lawyers will advise them to comply in light of this decision. The next logical step is for the (MP|RI)AA to serve cease and desist letters to individuals... then lawsuits will result if they don't comply.
Many people involved in this will agree that it's probably time for the (MP|RI)AA to start working on consumer dis-satisfaction... if they start to sue individuals, things will get very bad.
Mentions that John Doe was accused of sharing over 600 files. I guess that would make a little more sense for them to go after him. I can't imagine that trying to go after everyone who has downloaded mp3's would be economically feasible. Especially since they would have to 1) prove that the downloader didn't own the cd, 2) prove that the mp3 was actually a copywritten song (it could easily be a homework assignment with an odd filename. Those are two hurdles off of the top of my head that would probably throw a wrench into any attempt to prosecute. Likely this is more of an RIAA bid to scare ISP's into trying to crack down on use of P2P apps over their networks.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
This is the real cost to the ISP. Dealing with each of these requests, changing their log scripts, and handing over the data.
If the subpoena is particularly broad and the ISP is large, a subpoena can mean keeping gigabytes of data that the ISP would normally send to /dev/null.
--Pat
Uh, no. In most places, if you lend someone your car, and they get a ticket, you're responsible. You should carefully consider who you're lending you're car to.
Now, if you report your car as stolen (and it actually was stolen), and itshows up on one of those speed cameras, then yes, you can probably get out of the ticket, but not if you just lent it to your lead-foot friend.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
What's your complaint with Verizon? They did stand up against the RIAA . . . but lost.
whoa! back up a second!
Verizon was trying to stand up for one of their customers! The fact that they stood up to the RIAA is respectable itself. I'd rather boycott the ISPs which say "here's the info you requested, Ms Rosen."
Of course, I think Verizon is gonna appeal this, meaning that whatever John Doe is wanted by the RIAA is safe for just a little longer.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Please explain why anonymity should be a guaranteed means of avoiding persecution. Should all crimes committed though the internet be unpunishable? Just because you don't agree with the laws in question is not a reason to claim that the internet should be a place for actions without consequences. What if instead of MP3s this guy was suspected of transferring 6000 kiddy porn images?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Rip. Mix. Burn.
Has been superceded by
Track. Subpoena. Litigate.
Which had damn well better begotten by
Boycott. RIAA. NOW.
The ONLY way to get them to shut the hell up and off our backs, is to make sure their sales suck long after file-trading has been smacked-down.
~~~
"The slave thinks he is released from bondage, only to find a stronger set of chains" - NIN
It seems lately that the laws passed in the USA are only passed because they benefit the small minority of rich assholes who run everything.
Damn the man.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
I guess this means I can use the DMCA to force ISPs to give me the IDs of people whose machines have sent me spam. Since there's no due process involved, nor (seemingly) any right to appeal (at least by the ISP, and there doesn't seem to be a provision for user to appeal), I should be able to find out who they are, where they live, and their phone number.
What happens then? Use your imagination.
But what's the DMCA violation with spamming? The spammer has bypassed the technological measures installed on my machine (spam filters) preventing me from copying (receiving) their spam. Remember, the courts don't review this, so I can get their personal info just by asking.
Here, spammer...
The president of the RIAA says:
.mp3s (or oggs), for relatively cheap (e.g. $.25 a track...) I have not been educated or informed of a legitimate alternative to peer networks.
"The illegal distribution of music on the Internet is a serious issue for musicians, songwriters and other copyright owners, and the record companies have made great strides in addressing this problem by educating consumers and providing them with legitimate alternatives."
I am interested in legal methods of attaining high-quality, non restricted use
Exactly what strides have they been making? What alteratives are they giving us?
RIAASpeak:
"The illegal distribution of music on the Internet is a serious issue for musicians, songwriters and other copyright owners. . ."
The "other" copyright owners are the record companies. In fact, I'm sure the record companies are the only copyright owners most of the time--but it's a lot easier to stick up for the rights of a well-known (or not) musician, than it is to stick up for the rights of a faceless, multi-billion-dollar corporation.
Seriously--if artists owned any share of the copyright after their CD hit the market, do you think we'd see the flood of remade songs that are on the airwaves today?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Uh, yeah, did we forget about the Verizon user who downloaded all the MP3s? Didn't he violate some copyright holder's right to not have their stuff stolen?
I don't think getting a subpoena to access relevant information related to a possible crime (with reasonable suspicion) is violating anybody's rights.
Folks are going to have to pay for those illegally downloaded MP3s somehow- either by purchasing the album, or through fines and jail time.
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
The power's concentrated in the hands of the copyright holders, who have the money and the control.
In other words, the power is concentrated with the people who actually create things of value, rather than the people who just want to take from others?
Gee, what a f'd up world.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I'll say it again - it's not Verizon's Fault
A court has ruled that they are legally bound to provide the information - if they do not provide it they will be acting illegally.
Whether Verizon choose to fight it from a consumer protection issue, or so that they were not open to a flood of court actions it is no longer in thier hands.
So they did stand up to it - and they lost.
It is not a customer service issue - its a matter of law - they have no choice.
If the bad law upsets you write your congresscritter - I can't because I'm not a US resident.
Or do you think that the ISP should be allowed to block your identity when you perform illegal activities with their equipment?
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
The articles linked are relatively short on details, but I did glean the fact that the individual is *suspected* by the RIAA of downloading music. 600 sounds like one of the RIAAs made up numbers, but it doesnt matter.
So, some girl blew you off on ICQ? Got her IP? Want her real life name and info? Sure, send an official looking letter to her ISP and say you 'suspect' her of downloading your stuff. Want to harrass some kid because he likes PS2 and not XBox? Same deal.
I hope you LEOs are paying attention. See that kid on IRC talking about smoking a joint? Want his real name and address? Here you go.
This marks the end of privacy online.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Great. It isn't enough that RIAA taxes blank media, now they are taxing ISP's by increasing the ISP's costs, and thus the price we pay for internet service.
It's starting to look like RIAA is a world wide government. I wonder if if RIAA has nukes, and if Blix is going to inspect them.
Oh wait. They do have a nuke. It's called DMCA.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Have you ever wondered if it's possible to set up a competitor for the record companies that comprise the RIAA? Say... if you had the billions of $$ that Bill Gates has and you decided you just wanted to f*ck with the RIAA, you could set up a large-scale online music distribution system, a marketing arm to promote artists, and a recruiting arm to bring the talent into your agency. You could then proceed to just beat the RIAA in their own market.
I suppose this could fail on two counts: a) there's no way to be profitable on the same scale as the RIAA without protecting your assets through the same tactics they're currently using (which I doubt most of us believe) or b) to have the Gates-type bucks to do this you have to be such an unscrupulous bastard that you'd be no better than the RIAA anyway.
people who actually create things of value
Quick, name the last song written by the RIAA.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Copyrights are usually held by record and publishing corporations, not the artists. I am sure you have heard the expression, "starving artist," but have not heard anything like "starving executive."
In other words, power is concentrated with the people who just want to take from others, rather than the people who actually create things of value. This goes way beyond the creative and performing arts to real, tangible things of value.
I'll bet most of the components in the computer you are using now were made in an asian sweatshop, and the workers got nearly nothing. Their slave drivers got all the profit. The same can probably be said about the shoes and clothing you are wearing.
The world is indeed f'd up.
How ya like dat?
Let me give an example. I could send a letter to your ISP, and say 'We believe that a user at 92.43.23.134 is electronically distributing our copyrighted documents. We demand that you turn over their name and contact information, according to the terms of the DMCA.'
Or they could say "several people at all these addresses and all these times are suspected of..."
This essentially means there will be no legal check. See the fourth ammendment to the US Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
It has been fairly well established that obtaining records of that type are subject to 4th ammendment restrictions.
frob.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Damn your a prick. Verizons services and network is worth a hell of a lot more than some crappy songs and this ruling basically says that our right to anonymity online is not a right at all since everything we download can be recorded and sold to the RIAA just in case we might have downloaded some copyrighted material which is clearly where this is going. The RIAA is not a government agency they shouldnt have the power to investigate people like this. If they suspect a law is being broken they should have the feds pursue any and all actions. They have no right to bankrupt people in their pursuit to etch out a few more dollars. I speak from experience as someone who got a cease and decist letter from the RIAA and just to deal with that ie have my lawyer call their lawyer set me back 300$
Some sort of accountability must exist on the internet, just as it does in other forms of communication (phone, broadcast). If someone were making prank calls to a corporation from a phone, it's perfectly reasonable that said company be able to take action against them. The same would hold true if a person were broadcasting a pirate radio station. Noone would shed a tear if the FCC tracked them down at the request of the legitimate companies. We must compromise certain things to live in a civilized society.
We always talk about how the RIAA shouldn't be sueing providers, but sueing the pirates themselves.
Well now they're doing it. Let's not get our panties knotted when the RIAA actually follows the correct legal/moral path in their struggle to survive.
Besides, I sure as hell don't recall reading any privacy guarantees in my cable modem contract.
In other words, power is concentrated with the people who just want to take from others, rather than the people who actually create things of value.
I got news for you: no one forces an artist to do business with the RIAA. The artist hires the RIAA to market to their product. They are a partner in the process, not a slave, despite what a lot of people want you to believe.
I'll bet most of the components in the computer you are using now were made in an asian sweatshop, and the workers got nearly nothing. Their slave drivers got all the profit. The same can probably be said about the shoes and clothing you are wearing.
Here's some more news for you: laborers don't create anything, anymore than some show-making machine "creates" things. There are two kinds of creators: the people who actually design something (or in this case, write music), and the people who organize others to design and create things. Guess who is most valuable? Wrong. It's the organizers who are the most valuable, which is why they tend to make the most money.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
>> What if instead of MP3s this guy was suspected of transferring 6000 kiddy porn images?
Big difference. Copyright violation is a tort (civil wrong), whereas distributing kiddy porn is a federal crime.
I have no problem with mandated law enforcement agencies getting my info. I do have a problem with it being available to every jackass who thinks he's been wronged and wants to sue.
With the former (kiddy porn), a LEO would have to get a warrant - which would require some burden of proof on his part. With the latter (copyright infringment) all anyone needs is a subpeona, which requires nothing more than a "good faith" belief that one has been wronged.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
"What if instead of MP3s this guy was suspected of transferring 6000 kiddy porn images?"
I HATE this type of logic!!
What if this guy killed 6000 people?!
What if this guy raped your sister 6000 times?!
What if this guy stuck his finger in your ass all day long?!!
What if he traded 6000 images of churches or trees?!
He DIDN'T trade 1 or 6 or 600 or 6 million kiddie porn images - and probably would NEVER THINK OF IT!!
But you on the otherhand did think of it - and are equating this action with it. What the fuck are you thinking.
First of all these two things are not even remotely close. Second there is no point in trying to make him look like a kiddie porn pusher - and last the only reason why you would say something like this is to try to make your weak point look more valid - but instead it just invalidates your point.
First of all - anonymity should not be a guarantee against anything - but that does not mean that you should have no right to be anonymous. Just because you agree with the laws in question doesnt mean that you should claim that any and all actions of another person should be open and scrutinized by any organization or individual.
There should be the right to remain anonymous until you do something wrong.
But for God sakes - not all things that are "wrong" are the same. Pirating overpriced music from a fucked up monopolistic greedy industry (however illegal) is no where in the same solar system as kiddie porn.
Explain to me why we have tax brackets then. They don't benefit the rich. The govt. want to please the middle class on most issues so they can get re-elected. On issues that the middle class doesn't care about, they then take the lobby money and vote in favor of companies. Of course, the general public doesn't care at all about most of the issues that concern the slashdot crowd, so it's no surprise the govt. sides with industry on these issues.
Vote for Pedro
"no one forces an artist to do business with the RIAA. The artist hires the RIAA to market to their product. They are a partner in the process, not a slave, despite what a lot of people want you to believe."
Have you ever been in a band? I'm in crappy, but fun, bands who aren't going to get major label interest. But I know what's going on around me.
In order to sign to a major label, you sign away your soul. Large labels sell 80% of music, they pay out 8-15% of profits (minus advances), and they usually own your music. If your band fails, they try to collect money from you. Small labels treat you much better, but you don't go as far.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
So John Doe was sharing over 600 mp3s.
Let's assume for the moment John Doe actually owns the CDs or tapes or records that these mp3s come from. This isn't so far fetched. Figure about 15 tracks per CD. That's 40 ripped CDs to get 600 mp3s. 40 CDs is not a large CD collection. And ripping 40 CDs, especially with today's faster drives, wouldn't take a 9-5 working person more than a week to accomplish.
So to legally have 600 mp3s on your machine is not far-fetched.
So assuming John Doe is in the clear in terms of ownership, how does just sharing the files make it illegal? For starters he could simply have a misconfigured p2p client. There's been a lot of discussion on various compsec boards about how this happens all the time and a person winds up sharing their entire hard drive's contents without knowing it. If this is the case with John Doe, should be be prosecuted? For having a misconfigured p2p client?
Let's say the p2p client is not misconfigured. John Doe has 600 mp3s out there for the sharing.
What legalities would be involved if John Doe were able to put up some sort of disclaimer before a user can connect to his machine. Something saying that "I legally own these mp3s. Only people who legally own the albums which contain these songs may download these files." Does that put John Doe in the clear now?
What about a simple "Authorized access only". I've been to a few security conferences and some sessions have talked about how offices should place even just those three simple words on the screen every time a user logs into a company machine. That way it becomes easier to prosecute crackers who get in. IANAL but from hearing several first-hand accounts something this simple does go a long way, legally. So couldn't it also be used to defend against someone illegally downloading mp3s off an open p2p share?
I don't know, just sharing mp3s doesn't seem like it should be a prosecutable offense.
Is this just a naive view?
The phone company needs the customer's name and phone number to install or remove a DSLAM. How would you get around that?
It's a US House of Rep report, based on IRS data. To sum it up, those that make more than $300k/yr pay 37% of all income tax collected. Those making less than $27k/yr (50% of US population) pay less than 4% of all income tax collected.
Looking at the numbers, and defining (for the sake of argument) "middle class" as the middle third, I'd say that the middle class pays less than 15% of all income taxes collected. (Numbers rounded in my post, exact numbers in link)
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
This equation has never changed anywehere in the world for any significant length of time.
WRONG!
For approximately 99.98% of human history on this planet (according to our best geological and anthropological evidence, anyway) your inalterable equation has meant LESS than nothing. Anyone that tells you differently is just trying to break down your will to make a difference in changing these sorts of things for the better, or have already been broken themselves.
Power is not concentrated in the people who actually create things of value. Power is concentrated in those who own and control the production and distribution of things of value. Big difference.
To be fair, a distribution system IS a very valueable thing. Moving media closer to the consumer is undeniably a value added activity.
What has happened is that WHAT the most efficient distribution system actually is changed suddenly. The internet has rapidly and immediately changed the game. Previously, the physical distribution mechanism (CD's in boxes on trucks and trains headed to music stores) was the hardest part of the copyright distribution mechanism. All other phases of the process were optimized for its benefit because it was the bottleneck. When the disruption happened, the economic power in the physical distribution system was severed from economic reality and continues on by sheer inertia. The physical distribution model lost value faster than it lost power.
So it is accurate to say that power accrues to people who create value, but that does not mean that the powerful are currently the best at creating value.
You forgot that the DMCA and the NET Act both provide criminal penalties for copyright violation--that means federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. So you may want to reconsider the "so sue me" approach that was appropriate back before the "content" "industry" bought laws making copyright infringement criminal.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Creators seek the reward of fame and "making the world a better place". Organizers seek money. Later, when money is made, the creators bitch about not getting any of it. It's tragic; they deserve the money for their hard work. The reason they don't get it is a lack of foresight on their part.
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
You mean like laws supporting the rights of minorities? The disabled? Women?
What about the entire concept of social security? How does that help the rich, again?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
The RIAA can subpoena an ISP? I thought this had to be done through a law enforcement agency? The RIAA can act as the Internet cops now?
It doesn't, which is why the middle class ends up picking up the tab.
Perhaps Verizon could copyright the DHCP logs, add some lame encryption (CSS?) and then offer each log file as a "product". The price, of course, would be rather steep ($1,000,000 each). Such a copyrighted work would naturally be protected by DMCA, right?
Of course, RIAA wants just one line, but they would have to buy the entire overpriced "album". If Verizon is forced to hand over their digital "log file product" because of a DMCA subpeona, then they make up a stupid song and then subpeona the entire RIAA catalog, so they can search for "infringing" uses of their song lyrics.
While that's probably not entirely false, this is from the main article referenced:
Sounds principled enough to me. I'll leave the conspiracy theory that it's just a public front to the conspiracy theorists.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
This will be entertaining. First off, this is exactly what they should have done in the first place - gone after those who were actually downloading/distributing illegal material. Second, they are going to set a record for number of lawsuits brought by any entity other than the government. Where they will fund it I don't know.
One thing it might do, if it succeeds, is limit online distribution of music to truly independant music. Then we might see them lose their grip on the music industry, because people start listening to the indie bands which will be all they can legally download. I actually hope they do succeed, now that I think about it. The internet music community is now a force in its own right, and it may be ready to have its tie strings cut. More power to the RIAA - they may be doing something which will benefit both the indie bands and hurt their bottom line. Let's get a real independant music site established - maybe some music oriented university could set it up. Strictly regulate it, get signed permission from any singers who upload songs, make them free download (in ogg format, of course) and stand back.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
When are people going to wake up and realize that
1. The RIAA is not a Law Enforcement Agency
2. The RIAA is not even a government agency
3. Giving the RIAA a blanket subpoena power over all users on the internet gives everyone blanket subpoena power over all users on the internet.
4. The RIAA should not have ANY Subpoena power, they're not a court, they're not a grand jury, they're just a business.
5. The RIAA should contact the FBI if they have info on criminal activity.
It really pains me that so many people think that just because something is in digital form, that it's free.
I am a programmer. Some programs I write are sold for money and are proprietary. Some others are Free Software (free as in freedom) which I give away. Why? Because I choose to license them as such.
The VERY SIMPLE point that some people don't seem to get is that UNLESS THE AUTHOR GIVES YOU THE FREEDOM TO COPY HIS/HER WORK *YOU* *CAN'T* *DO* *IT*.
Take it in and stop whining about "your rights" when all you have been doing by downloading 600 MP3s a day is infringing on the rights of the VERY ARTISTS YOU LOVE.
Yes, the RIAA has lots of money and YES it's easy to see them as the bad guy. But that's just a COP OUT!!
It boils down to: YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DOWNLOAD MP3s FOR MUSIC YOU DON'T OWN. FULL STOP.
So, please spare us all the whining and the crying and the "I wonder why they're doing this to poor old us" routine.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
The DMCA does not have much built in protection to prevent innocents from having action taken against them. The accuser, and it could be anybody, does not have to prove guilt in a trial.
The accused looses internet access and the contents of their web site, including ecommerce data if it was an ecommerce site. The ability to sue or bring charges after the fact is cold comfort if one depended on that internet connection for their business or livelihood.
The DMCA is a very bad law that violates everything due process stands for. It is open to abuses: anything from retailers trying to silence coupon sites over their prices, to kids trying to get someone they dislike off the web.
No, I don't care about KaZaa's continued existance. I have no interest in saving the big music labels (the ones that use work-for-hire contracts to take copyrights from artists in the first place) from their own stupidity and greed. Neither are worth having our constitutional rights violated by such an outrageous piece of bought legislation.
"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961).
- The MPAA is (rightly, IMHO) upset about people publishing MPAA
.mp3 files on the internet.
- There is no law which makes it illegal to share
.mp3 files on the internet. RIAA .mp3 files are a sub class.
- There is no law which makes it illegal to share other kinds of files on the internet. Again, RIAA
.mp3 files are a sub class.
It irks me when the MPAA tries to tag anyone who shares files, or even specificallyDon't give in to their FUD.
No. That's what the RIAA want's you to think is the point of the exercise. But what we really need to do is just make sure that none of the 600 files we downloaded (and shared) last night are being published in violation of applicable copyright laws.
If you want to mount an effective boycott of the MPAA then hit them where it will hurt. Share lots and lots of (.mp3 and other kinds of) files; make p2p a vibrant community, but boycott MPAA files: don't download them and don't share them.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.