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.

Comments

too easy...

[Sparr0]

It wasnt me, it was my brother/son/wife/cousin/neighbor/someone-using-my- WAP

Re:too easy...

[yohaas]

Not exactly, once they get a hold of your computer, they can figure it all out.

Re:too easy...

[Sparr0]

But who is to say it was you using that computer? It is exactly like those automated speeding ticket cameras, just tell them someone else was driving (unless they were smart enough to take a picture of the driver, which very few of the systems do).

Oh, yeah... FP!

Re:too easy...

[geekoid]

tell it to the judge, you're going to court and will have to foot the bill for the expenses.

Sure you may get off, but it will be 25,000 dollars later.

Re:too easy...

[jdreed1024]

It is exactly like those automated speeding ticket cameras, just tell them someone else was driving

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.

Re:too easy...

[Mantrid]

In Canada anyways, Ontario long ago gave up the idea of photo-radar because the tickets never held up and basically everyone contested them.

Re:too easy...

[phriedom]

No, I'm pretty sure that is not how it works in the US, since that is counter to everything our laws are founded on. And I AM sure that is not how it works here in my state. Here, the ticket is mailed to the registered owner of the car who must choose from : (1) Thats me, I did it; (2) I swear under penalty of perjury that I was not driving my car at the designated time, in which case a live person checks the picture against the drivers license picture and the ticket is dismissed if they don't match. or (3) I sold this car before the date of the ticket and here is the proof. They may have added another choice since a high-profile case where a state rep. was speeding in a state fleet grey sedan that had a license plate number very similar to a totally innocent person who drove a blue pickup truck and received the ticket in the mail.

Re:too easy...

[Ioldanach]

It is exactly like those automated speeding ticket cameras, just tell them someone else was driving

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.

IANAL, but, in my experience, there are two kinds of tickets. There are tickets for your car doing something wrong (parking tickets for example), and for the driver doing something wrong (speeding).

For the first kind, the ticket always goes to the owner, and I've never heard of an owner being able to claim someone else did it. An automated ticket, of course, only refers to the second kind. A traditional driver at fault ticket happens when a police officer pulls the driver over, identifies who's driving, and gives the driver a ticket. In the current automated systems, a photo of the car is taken. Then, later, if the driver wants to say my lead-footed friend borrowed the car, he'll have to tell them the lead-footed friend's name so they can serve the ticket to him instead. There's photo-proof that the owner wasn't driving, in that case, but they'll probably hold the owner liable until the driver at the time is located.

Re:too easy...

[cheezedawg]

Here is an example from California:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d09/vc17150.htm

Every owner of a motor vehicle is liable and responsible for death or injury to person or property resulting from a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the operation of the motor vehicle, in the business of the owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of the owner.

That deals with civil liability- I'm too lazy to look up how traffic violations are handled.

Re:too easy...

[alphaseven]

Off topic, but I think it had more to do with Mike Harris keeping a campaign promise.

Like, "Vote for me, and I'll get rid of that damn photo-radar." Democracy works sometime.

Re:too easy...

[xmedar]

Even better excuse number 42-

I run a Wi-Fi hot spot and I don't log anything

These things are going to continue.

[crankyspice]

The power's concentrated in the hands of the copyright holders, who have the money and the control. The DMCA was passed because they wanted it; the Verizon motion was decided this way because they wanted it...
http://www.geocities.com/digitalmilleniumla w/

Re:These things are going to continue.

[LegendOfLink]

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.

Re:These things are going to continue.

[dillon_rinker]

News flash. With few exceptions, the laws passed in the USA have ALWAYS benefited the small minority of rich. Go read your history. Rich=powerful=rich. This equation has never changed anywehere in the world for any significant length of time. Things are not getting worse; you are getting older and wiser.

Re:These things are going to continue.

[fanatic]

people who actually create things of value

Quick, name the last song written by the RIAA.

Re:These things are going to continue.

[macdaddy357]

That's a troll, but I'll bite anyway.

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.

Re:These things are going to continue.

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:These things are going to continue.

[geekee]

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.

Re:These things are going to continue.

[chimpo13]

"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.

Re:These things are going to continue.

[Sgt York]

If the rich don't pay any taxes, explain this.

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)

Re:These things are going to continue.

[Reverend Joe]

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.

Re:These things are going to continue.

[bwt]

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.

Re:These things are going to continue.

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, the RIAA has a history of financially screwing over EVERY SINGLE PERSON THEY COME IN CONTACT WITH!!!

They rip off artists. Yes, Ive heard the argument about how artists agree to RIAA terms. That is because the RIAA has a monopoly over the resources to market and produce music cd's. The artists make almost nothing, maybe %15 of sales, tops. Thats why they do endorsements and concerts and merchandise. THAT is how the artists make their money. The RIAA is just a promotional machine.

But wait! $17 for a CD? If the artist only gets about 15% of that, that still is $2.55 cents out of the total. That leaves $14.55 for the RIAA. Oh, well, you know, their costs of producing cds. Blank cds arent that expensive, and remember, these guys are using production equipment and tooling to make these things, which means their labeling machines, their cd writers, every step of their industry to produce the product is done at a production level manufacturing perspective. That means, that it costs much less for them to do it than anybody else. I refuse to believe that they are spending $11 per cd on production, promotion, and shipping costs. Sorry, but its BS. I know, I know, they buy radio time initially for their music. Ok, but if the song is good, the listeners request it, so there isnt any need to buy radio time beyond the first day or two after release of the record. And I dont see many commercials about compact discs. So where does the money go?

Right into the pocket of the RIAA, and then into their lobbyists. In case anyone has forgotten, they are settling in a federal lawsuit that accussed them of putting in place illegal price controls. Settling means they are guilty. Plain and simple

Re:These things are going to continue.

[Sgt York]

Actually, it is the creator that is more valuable. The organizer is simply smarter and more observant. He recognizes the value and capitalizes on it. Those who create typically get a lot of enjoyment out of the act, and from seeing others enjoy their creation; that is how they envision their reward. Organizers view money as their reward, and act in a way to get it.

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.

Re:These things are going to continue.

[freeweed]

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?

Re:These things are going to continue.

[Computer!]

I got news for you: no one forces an artist to do business with the RIAA.

Maybe not before their contract is signed, but once it is, anything and everything that artist records is property of the RIAA. Forever.

They are a partner in the process, not a slave, despite what a lot of people want you to believe.

Would you call a record label who refuses to release material, and only signs a contract to silence an artist that would compete with an artist already on their label a partner? What about a label that refuses to fund an artist, yet will not let them out of their contract? Are they a partner? The RIAA and its member labels do not care about artist success, creative product, or anything but cold, hard cash. They aren't partners in jack shit.

It's the organizers who are the most valuable, which is why they tend to make the most money.

No, and no. Who creates the most value in art? The person who creates it, or the person who packages it? Is the owner of the printing press more valuable than the author in creating a book? Of course not. The work exists, and has value to every single person who enjoys it. It doesn't have to reach millions in order to be valuable.

If the RIAA is so valuable, then why do they have to use artificial means such as legislation to protect what should be inherent value?

Re:These things are going to continue.

[DerFeuervogel]

Wrong. It's the organizers who are the most valuable, which is why they tend to make the most money.

This got me thinking. Why not get rid of the performers all together since they are unimportant. I am a musician, and I would love to hear my booker do my gigs - really. That the music cartells have monopolized music distribution to the point where unless you kiss their nether sections it's hard to get work says that we have a problem with the music distribution mechanism not that the "Organizers" have anyinherent greater value to the process. Or maybe I'm totally off base and my booker is really hot on stage. I doubt it though.

Simple Solution for ISPs

[swordboy]

Stop keeping logs of users. Just issue DHCP at random and be done with it.

Re:Simple Solution for ISPs

[Tackhead]

> Stop keeping logs of users. Just issue DHCP at random and be done with it.

Won't work, at least not without one hell of a tradeoff. If you still wanna be able to LART Joe Luzer for running the open SOCKS proxy through which you got spammed or DDoSed, RIAA has to be able to LART Joe Musicfan for running the Gnutella note through which they downloaded HilaryRosenIsABigFatBitch.mp3

If ISPs could blocked outbound port 25 traffic from residential cablemodem and DSL users, that'd greatly cut down the amount of spam the rest of the 'net has to deal with, but logs would still have to be kept with regards to DDoS issues.

Re:Simple Solution for ISPs

[God! Awful 2]

Stop keeping logs of users. Just issue DHCP at random and be done with it.

Willful ignorance is not a defense to the law. (Remember Napster tried to claim that they were merely providing a file swapping service and they didn't monitor which files people were trading.)

-a

Re:Simple Solution for ISPs

[jerryasher]

Stop breaking the net for millions of legitimate home users.

My mail server is much better run, much more reliable, and much more secure than most ISPS.

Instead of using DHCP at all, move to IPV6 and give everyone static addresses.

Give everyone a static IP and stop logging what users do. There is no need, apart from marketing private information, for an ISP to log their own users. Filter spoofed IP packets from emerging from their networks, and then let complaints about malicious user activities (DDOS, SPAM) come with a logged IP address and then the ISP under the right circumstances can track the attacker down, securely, correctly, and without violating everyone's privacy.

And if the complaint is without merit, issue a new IP at the user's request.

Re:Simple Solution for ISPs

[God! Awful 2]

You are not generally required by law to keep user logs. Poor recordkeeping is not illegal.

That is something that traditionally varies by industry. Ask a pawn shop owner what happens if they don't keep good records.

ISPs provide a service that can facilitate criminal activities. The courts will almost certainly rule that they are required to keep some records, especially DHCP logs, which they would very likely want to keep anyway (for debugging purposes or for monitoring spam, DoS, and other abuses).

-a

Come on!

[gmajor]

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.

Re:Come on!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it is clear that the person had downloaded 600 song files in a day.

The version of the story on MSNBC states that the person was sharing more than 600 song files.

I'd expect the MSNBC story may be more correct since it would be easier to tell that a user was sharing a large number of files instead of telling how many they downloaded.

Unless of course the user happened to download them all from the same RIAA honeypot in which case he might have a defense that they were publically available for download just as a page on a HTTP server is publically available. After all if he downloaded the songs from the RIAA and that is how the found out he downloaded 600 file then they be at fault for sharing them in the first place.

Of course IANAL and that is just my 2 cents worth.

As far as taking the music without paying for it anyone can do that over the radio and in any case I don't recall the RIAA giveing me any sort of recompense for attempting to take my fair use rights.

Re:Come on!

[TheRealFixer]

It's interesting to note that downloading music you already own is most likely perfectly legal, whether the RIAA likes to admit it or not, simply because of they way they are trying to categorize the sale of music.

Say for instance, a bunch of my CDs get scratched and are now unplayable on a couple of my players. So, I just download the whole albums off of Kazaa to replace them. Technically, I am within my rights to do this. Why? Because the music industry is trying to look at it like the software model, where the content is wholy apart from the media. Therefore, I've a payed for a licence to listen to this music, and not for a fragile disk that's been destroyed.

Interestingly, if they looked at it like they were selling you the CD (something they're loathe to do; see: the hard, bitter battle against used CD sales), instead of licencing the content, it could be argued illegal to do that. After all, if you scratch your car, you can't just walk down to the lot and drive another one off without asking, can you?

Of course, the RIAA once tried to convince people on their website that making backup copies of music you've bought was against the law. So, pesky legal "rights" are of little concern to them anyway.

Re:Come on!

[goondu]

If 600 downloads constitutes piracy, then where do you draw the line? 100 tracks? 5? Just one?

I own hundreds of CDs. If i decided to download every single track, rather than rip them myself, i'd be downloading 1000's of files. If i downloaded them all in a single day, i'd be in this person's situation.

I'm not implying that piracy wasn't involved, but i can think of at least one situation where it wasn't. (granted this is according to my own definition of piracy) Once RIAA wins this case, the likelyhood of a repeated situation is high.

Re:Come on!

[ianjk]

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.

So, how does the RIAA know he downloaded 600 tracks?
Would the courts order Verison to give me someone's name if I thought they had downloaded one of my copywrited songs? (I bet not).
What about software, can any publisher now go and ask for the names of people they SUSPECT of illegal downloading their product???
The courts just set a precedent and the RIAA is probably going to continue with this activity until they realize it is futal and they go back to what they were originally supposed to do, set and maintain standards for recording.

Re:Come on!

[cybercuzco]

Say for arguments sake that my music library was recently destroyed due to a harddrive issue. I download maybe 1 song a week (if that) but ive got over 600 songs, i could get busted if i restored my collection in one day? (hypothetically, assuming i had such a collection. At any rate, I would LOVE to see the RIAA go after EVERYONE who has downloaded an MP3 from the internet. A word to the wise, if you do get busted for this, demand a jury trial and dont take any plea bargains. For that matter, dont hire an attourney, let the court provide one. If everyone who gets busted does this, pretty soon the court system breaks down. Currenttly only 5% of cases are tried by a jury, the other 95% are pleabargained down.

Re:Come on!

[CharlieO]

As I see it the music industry has two models:

1) Physical ownership - i.e. you own the music CD

This is like buying a book - you decide what to do with the CD, lend it to your mates, play it in the car, your laptop whatever

2) Licensing - i.e. you buy a license to listen to an album, the CD is just a delivery medium

This is basically how most software is shipped.

But copy protecting CD's hurts the consumer in both ways.

If I own the CD outright then I'm entitled to my money back because you crippled it and it won't play in my laptop - the goods are faulty.

If I license the music then once I have the delivery medium I'm entitled to listen to the music anyway I want - but I can't because it won't play in my laptop.

Now try as I might I can't see another 'model' that the music industry can use.

Music wants to be made and the people involved must be compensated for thier skill and effort. I want to listen to a good range of music in a way that is convenient to me and I'm willing to provide that compensation.

I'm fed up of hearing that an album is deleated, or I can only get track X on this compilation. I want to listen to music that I've already heard or heard about and I'm willing to pay for it.

The challenge for the record industry is to build a buisness model on that, which sadly they show no inclination to do.

As one of my pasttimes I've run discos and compiled themed compilations for local pubs - all legal uses of downloaded MP3s as all the venues have paid thier PPL fees (This is in the UK) and yet I now can't find the one offs, the deleted tracks, the special mixes that I could on Napster.

Treat consumers like criminals 24/7 and they will start to act like criminals.

Bahh - sorry off topic a bit.

Can't do that

[cscx]

What if someone launches a large scale DDoS attach from their netblock? You'd think they'd like to be aware of it...

sky.isFalling() = True

[Amsterdam Vallon]

Let me get this straight.

We now live in a world where anonymity no longer exists, we have to pay for music, and an ugly 18 year old Canadian chick is at the top of the US music charts?

I need a Tums...

Re:sky.isFalling() = True

[Kenja]

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?

Re:sky.isFalling() = True

[_bug_]

What if instead of MP3s this guy was suspected of transferring 6000 kiddy porn images?

And what if some cracker has rooted your machine with some trojan and is doing the downloading of kiddy porn. But the FBI only sees your IP address and when they ask the owner of that IP address (the ISP) to identify the user using that IP at that specific time, they come to you. You "claim" you "don't know anything about this" but of course the FBI won't believe that. They take your computer, your fax, all your CDs, all your disks, your home movies, go through your closets, your drawers, ask you to open up that safety deposit box you have at the bank that your spouce doesn't know about, ect...

Far-fetched? Not at all.

And as far as I can tell from the parent post, the poster isn't claiming that the internet should be a place for actions without consequences.

What we're talking about is the loss of privacy. Now any organization can subpoena your ISP claiming they saw W.X.Y.Z IP address downloading or sharing copyrighted music. They don't stop to question whether or not it's legal. (Yes, downloading an mp3 off an album you own is very legal.) The ISP, after this court's ruling, will be far more inclined to give up that information outright and most likely without your knowledge.

So now the company can go and subpoena a thousand IP addresses a week to an ISP. From that they can start to keep track of who is online and when and what they're doing. Suddly there's a database that notes who you are, your typical online hours, and what FILES (not songs, remember p2p is more than just mp3s) you may have on your computer.

Sure you might be innocent.

But they've got all this personal information about you and they've done it legally.

Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

'Cause that's where we are.

Re:sky.isFalling() = True

[stratjakt]

>> 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.

Re:sky.isFalling() = True

[_ph1ux_]

"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.

Re:sky.isFalling() = True

[u19925]

the question is not about anonymity to avoid prosecution. the question is about who should be forced to cooperate at what cost for what crime. verizon or any other isp now needs to comply with potentially millions of subpeona automatically generated through viruses and worms by RIAA. they must not make mistake, lest they get sued by users for violating their privacy. this is a huge burden on any isp. in the past, it was presumed that isps just carry information and they should not need to comply with such subpeonas, but now that has changed.

Re:sky.isFalling() = True

[_bug_]

What in your opinion should be done to people who are obviously using the Internet to break copywrite laws?

It's NOT OBVIOUS that a copyright law is being broken.

That's my whole point.

Assumptions are being made and being treated as fact. For just being suspected of violating copyright law the RIAA now has the power to start collecting personal information about who you are.

That's equivalent to me going to your bank and telling them I suspect you of fraud and to give me your bank account number and contact information.

That's the kind of precedent that's being set here.

Do you want anyone with a suspicion to be able to gather sensitive, personal information about you like that?

this is not good...

[joebeone]

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.

Re:this is not good...

[poot_rootbeer]

What bad? The RIAA SHOULD be suing individuals for violating copyright by trafficking MP3's.

The individuals are ultimately the ones responsible. ISPs, P2P services, etc., are merely conduits.

Re:this is not good...

[stefanlasiewski]

I don't like the RIAA any more then you do, but nothing new here...

If you break the law, you must face the possibility that you might get caught and face persecution.

It's been this way outside the internet world since the first law were written. The internet simply provided a way in which you could hide.

If you can't deal with that, you need to a) grow up and realize the legal consequences or b) stop breaking the law.

And while you're at it, quit supporting mainstream music, and feel free to support labels who are independant of the RIAA. My favorite is Warp Records.

Re:this is not good...

[EZmagz]

... if they start to sue individuals, things will get very bad.

No kidding. Although, in a way, it would also be a mixed blessing. Think of it this way: there's no better way for John Q. Public to wake up to all the crap and unfairness going on with the MPAA/RIAA than for his best friend to get sued to oblivion for downloading music/movies that he very well might legally own. Once that happens, just wait and watch for the headlines on your local favorite news channel. "Boy Sued For $1 Millon For Downloading Music To Replace Scratched CDs He Dropped In Shitter."

Of course, for every legitimate download there's probably 10-100 fold "illegal" downloads going on, and that's all the MPAA/RIAA really cares about. As Jay in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back so sussenctly put it, "we're going to get our MUTHAfuckin' movie check."

Court Opinion

[Jim Tyre]

The Court's Opinion is here.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA") has moved to enforce a subpoena served on Verizon Internet Services ("Verizon") under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA" or "Act"), 17 U.S.C. 512. On behalf of copyright owners, RIAA seeks the identity of an anonymous user of Verizon's service who is alleged to have infringed copyrights with respect to more than 600 songs downloaded from the Internet in a single day. The copyright owners (and thus RIAA) can discern the Internet Protocol address, but not the identity, of the alleged infringer -- only the service provider can identify the user. Verizon argues that the subpoena relates to material transmitted over Verizon's network, not stored on it, and thus falls outside the scope of the subpoena power authorized in the DMCA. RIAA counters that the subpoena power under section 512(h) of the DMCA applies to all Internet service providers, including Verizon, whether the infringing material is stored on or simply transmitted over the service provider's network.

The case thus presents a core issue of statutory interpretation relating to the scope of the subpoena authority under the DMCA. The parties, and several amici curiae, agree that this is an issue of first impression of great importance to the application of copyright law to the Internet. Indeed, they concede that this case is presented as a test case on the DMCA subpoena power.Based on the language and structure of the statute, as confirmed by the purpose and history of the legislation, the Court concludes that the subpoena power in 17 U.S.C. 512(h) applies to all Internet service providers within the scope of the DMCA, not just to those service providers storing information on a system or network at the direction of a user. Therefore, the Court grants RIAA's motion to enforce, and orders Verizon to comply with the properly issued and supported subpoena from RIAA seeking the identity of the alleged infringer.

....

From the article:

[Gentoo Fan]

The recording industry asked Verizon last summer to reveal the name of a customer believed to have downloaded more than 600 songs in one day, but Verizon refused

(Emph mine.) So just based on the fact that the customer might have downloaded [any number] of songs, they have convinced the federal government to step in and force Verizon to release information to a group of record companies? This is revolting.

Re:From the article:

[aridhol]

They already have reason to believe that this person has downloaded the files. With the name of the customer, they are now able to investigate whether the person actually downloaded the files.

Or do you think that the ISP should be allowed to block your identity when you perform illegal activities with their equipment?

Sooo....

[cybermace5]

Ok.

What happens if, say, I have my MP3 collection on my computer at home. I get permission to temporarily use the storage at work while doing a reformat of my computer. When I download all the files back to my computer at home, is the RIAA going to come knocking?

Two choices: encrypt the entire collection or re-rip from CD. I don't know which would take longer.

Re:Sooo....

[Sloppy]

Two choices: encrypt the entire collection or re-rip from CD.

Or the 3rd choice: encrypt the connection. VPN or transfer with scp or something like that. You should be doing that anyway, RIAA or not. Besides RIAA, you also have to worry about Big Brother, criminals, CowboyNeal, etc. Do you want anyone who is on the net between your workplace and home, to have access to your personal files?

Where's Johnny Cochrane and the Chewbacca Defense

[snowpuppy]

Johnny Cochrane: It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I'm am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. The defense rests.

RIAA = new nazi

[joeldg]

Jeez.. come on, you think they are going to go after your little brother for downloading Weird Al recordings?
hrm.. maybe they will...
But I doubt it. However, they are using tactics like these to scare people, and it is working (the comment about sweating in the main post) and that is ridiculous.
We need a good encrypted filesharing app, with each box running it using a PGP key which is publically available *offshore* somewhere.. This could all be automated of course.
grumble

An idea

[Amsterdam Vallon]

A federal judge ordered Verizon Communications Tuesday to turn over the name of a customer suspected of downloading songs over the Internet, handing a victory to recording companies in their fight against online piracy.

But what if I start my own ISP and the database of customer records is indexed without any information that would be able to identify the person or phone line that's dialing in to use our Web access services?

Any payment information would be done with cash only and written on pencil and paper kept in a lockbox or safe of some sort so that no matter what a court rules, my customers remain anonymous.

Is this feasible?

Hmm the new.com article

[jgerman]

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.

Re:Hmm the new.com article

[geekoid]

What if John Doe didn't know he was sharing them?
example:
Left a port open,
someone else had compromised his machine,
a software product didn't install correctly, etc...

Re:Hmm the new.com article

[stratjakt]

600 files? I could easily share more than 600 files worth of public domain software, music, and books.

600 files is jack shit. This is a small server. They're after the Joe Nobodies now.

The cost is complying with the request

[yppiz]

Even if Verizon deletes the logs every day, the subpoena (request) can force them to retain the logs as evidence.

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

Re:The cost is complying with the request

[Tackhead]

> 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.

If I were the ISP, I'd comply with any request RIAA gave me for customer logs. I'd send 'em every byte every customer transmitted or received.

I mean, what else am I gonna do with the half-dozen old line printers I found in the basement? :-)

Re:Dump Verizon

[micromoog]

What's your complaint with Verizon? They did stand up against the RIAA . . . but lost.

Re:That'll show him

[tsetem]

So why is Microsoft entering the argument? Are they getting into Broadband now?

Re:Dump Verizon

[jeffy124]

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.

As hard as it is to swallow...

[goingincirclez]

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.

Time for a cash only ISP

[crstophr]

I propose a cash only, recordless DSL ISP. In our customer agreement we specifically state that people may pay by cash, or money order, and even if they do pay with credit cards, no records will be kept, beyond, payment received for modem #12345. No customer names are ever to be kept. Why do I care what your name is, all that matters to me is that you pay your bill, all that matters to you is that your DSL modem works. For obvious reasons, no outgoing port 25 traffic allowed, otherwise this could be spammer heaven. Customers would have to submit payment along with the uniq number identifying thier DSL modem. That keeps the modem on for another month. Once the transaction is verified, no records are retained, and we never link IP address to DSL modem. Maybe we implement a daily rotating DHCPd IP scheme for good measure. Supeona my business records? sure, here's 100000 cash receipt stubs with no names, have a ball.

use DMCA to get spammers

[koehn]

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...

From the CNN article:

[guido1]

The president of the RIAA says:
"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 .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.

Exactly what strides have they been making? What alteratives are they giving us?

Old rule of life...

[wowbagger]

There's an old rule of life which states:

Never record anything you wouldn't want on the 6:00 news.

Anything you write down, record on tape, commit to a file on your computer, or store in any way other than in the meat between your ears can come back to haunt you.

Verizon should make sure they log as little as possible - keep IP to User ID logs for not more than a day, don't log ANY actions of your proxy servers, and so on.

Then, when the *AA comes and says "We need all your logs for the past week so we can find this pirate", Verizon can say "Here's all the logs we have - the last 23 hours. Cheers!"

If you absolutely feel you must have the possiblity of accessing logs older than that, then encrypt them with a public key. Let the private key be held by an individual in another country. If you need to access the logs, you mail the encrypted log to him, he decrypts it and sends it back.

Then if you are served, you give the logs to the nice officers, and then tell your friend that you have been served. Then, even if you want the logs decrypted, your friend won't.

Let them go to East Elbonia if they want the logs decrypted.

Re:User in question is serving 600 songs?

[SoVeryWrong]

I doubt the RIAA knows what IRC is.
I think the only reason they know about P2P apps is because it was on 60 minutes.

Ownership

[PhxBlue]

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?

Re:This is complete and total bullshit

[llamaluvr]

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.

two words..

[warpSpeed]

Freenet baby!

Sure it is not as fast as the P2P clients, but it is slowly getting there. The more poeple use it the better it will get.

Important - its not Verizon's Fault

[CharlieO]

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.

Sharing music is not stealing

[xyzzy-ladder]

An RIAA "artist" takes a chord progression and melody that's been "written" and recorded over and over again, and then RIAA sues someone for copying it? Ridiculous.

Remember when George Harrison was convicted of "copyright infringment" for the song, "My Sweet Lord" - it had the chord progression and melody of an older song, "He's So Fine". The judge ruled that if every 7th note was the same, it could be copyright infringment.

Remember when John Fogerty (the former lead singer of Creedence Clearwater Revival) was sued for sounding like himself? The record company claimed that they owned the "sound" of CCR, and John Fogerty's solo album sounded like, well, himself. How can anyone take this crap seriously?

If I never buy CDs, and I copy music from my friend who does buy CDs, what has the RIAA lost? Nothing. So how is it stealing?

The fact that people are seriously saying that a "corporation" can "own" a song just shows how far newspeak has progressed.

Is he going to be charged with unauthorized possession of electrons in a particual sequence? Will he be charged with attacking ships on the high seas?

The fact that Michael Jackson's company "owns" Beatles songs is theft IMO.

I wonder which people on slashdot are being paid to spread this "sharing is stealing" meme, and more importantly, how can I sign up?

Possible silver lining? Just *possible* ?

[g_adams27]

Could it possibly be that maybe the RIAA has over-extended themselves this time? Up till now, they've mostly gone after individuals and small, poor companies. And geeks on their own haven't had much success in getting DMCA-restricting laws passed. DMCA abuses have probably been largely under-the-radar for most congressmen, and for those who have noticed them, there's probably been plenty of RIAA lobbyists (and cash!) to convince them that these really aren't abuses.

But now, with this one-two punch aimed at ISPs (see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/18/21 16255&mode=thread&tid=141)they've started annoying the big boys - corporations with real money. No ISP in their right mind wants to have to give up their user's personal info without a fight - it makes them look bad and generates a lot of bad will with their customers.

So might it be that Verizon, AT&T, BellSouth, Earthlink, etc. will start some counter-lobbying on the Hill to get the DMCA limited? Sure, they're not really doing it for the best reasons... but you know what they say about "the enemy of my enemy."

Alternate newsie source

[c13v3rm0nk3y]

The Globe and Mail also has an article about this.

Check out the scary "John Doe" clause.

Read the court's decision

[kyoko21]

The alleged user was not sharing 600 files, he downloaded 600 distinct files. As to how RIAA came up with that number, I presume they must have 'shared' a good amount of stuff and that particular person just so happen to have downloaded A LOT of stuff from them in order to see what was uploaded from their treasure chest.

Stalkers, kooks and zealots hurrah!

[stratjakt]

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.

Does their motive really matter?

[ShatteredDream]

The end result is that they were fighting for something many of us value. The US legal system is still heavily based on common law which means that a precedent set here would help us. Once again the ignorance of many "geeks" and "nerds" is astounding. It never ceases to amaze me how many take a "principled stand" yet don't have the balls to do anything themselves. I bet most of Verizon's critics on this issue can't even get off their dead asses and write their Congress(man || woman) on issues they rant and rave about on /.

Go ahead, call me a troll and label my post flamebait. I at least write my congresscritter on a regular basis and am one of the few in my area that has the balls to call out my representative in public on issues I believe in. I have confronted him before in front of a large body of people on the DMCA, a bill he is very proud of having been involved with.

It's pathetic how loud and shrill the bitching of slashdot's resident armchair revolutionaries can get.

Oh great. Just wonderful.

[buss_error]

it just wanted to avoid the costs of complying with the (many) subpoenas it will now receive.

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.

They're monitoring P2P, not sniffing the internet

[swb]

I don't think the RIAA would even know this was happening. Now if you just blew away your MP3s and redownloaded them from a host controlled by RIAA and they could gather that traffic data, then you might have a problem.

Competition for the RIAA

[Cardioid]

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.

Re:Self destruct methods?

[caluml]

I've often thought about this. This is my solution.

Assuming you run Linux, make a loopback crypto partition. However, don't just use a password for the encryption key.
Make a smallish file (128 bytes) of random uuencoded data into a file (random128bytes) .
Write a shell script that prompts for your password, and uses the contents of that file with the password appended.

That way, the password is still required, but if in doubt, you can shred -u random128bytes, and you'll never be able to get it back. Knowing the password won't help you at all.

Any suggestions for improvements from the Slashdot paranoids? :)

Let's Call This What It Really Is...

[otterpop378]

This is:
1.An attempt, and order BY the government to uphold the will of a corporation, above and beyond that of the citizens. Therefore:
2.A hostile act by the government against the citizens of this nation.

--otterpop378

Re:Dump Verizon

[Ioldanach]

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."

They only sort-of tried to stand up for one of their customers. They really tried to stand up for their checkbook, which will take a big hit if the RIAA can suddenly subpoena thousands of IP #'s every week. The fact that this caused them to stand up for one of their customers was really only a side effect. Trust me, I live in one of their service areas, and they're not known as a great company. Then again, I don't know any phone company anyone actually *likes*.

If...

[dex22]

If the RIAA doesn't know who the person is, how do they know the person unlawfully downloaded the music? That person may be legally entitled to possess copies of those 600 tracks as they may already own the CDs. For all they know, this person may be a record company employee!

I certainly feel I am doing nothing wrong if I download tracks I already own on CD, and I certainly own right to play more than 600 tracks. More like 6000!

Re:Why complain?

[Frobnicator]

You miss the point. They made a request without following the traditional legal routes (subpoena). This means that (if it doesn't go through appeal) they can demand any ISP for the name of any subscriber for alleged privacy violations.

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.

Reuters got this wrong....

[lynx_user_abroad]

Did Reuters get this wrong, or have I misread something?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge ordered Verizon Communications Tuesday to turn over the name of a customer suspected of downloading songs over the Internet, handing a victory to recording companies in their fight against online piracy.

According to what I read in the complaint, the DMCA authorizes a publisher to subpoena the identity of an alleged copyright infringer. "...RIAA believed a computer on Verizon's internet service was distributing to the public for download unauthorized copies of hundreds of copyrighted sound recordings..."

Was the verizon subscriber targeted because he was downloading RIAA music files, or because he was publishing (offering for download) RIAA music files?

Enquiring minds want to know? I expect a retraction (or a re-write) of the Reuters quote any time now. I suspect the RIAA FUD campaign is working too well, inadvertently causing some journalist with average integrity to because a part of their FUD engine. Can a publisher assert copyright infringment charges against a posessor (rather than a publisher) of an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work?

Re:Reuters got this wrong....

[lynx_user_abroad]

We need to combat this FUD. We need to keep our terminology straight.

• 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 specifically .mp3 files as a "pirate". To me, that's at least overly broad and at most libelous. Now we hear that CD-R's (which we admit can be used to save "files") must therefore be taxes because of the possibility that some of those files will be .mp3 files, and some of those .mp3 files will be RIAA .mp3 files, and some of those RIAA .mp3 files will be RIAA .mp3 files which are unauthorized copies.

Don't give in to their FUD.

Of course, if everyone disables sharing, there won't be anything to download, but I guess that's the point of the exercise.

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.

Hmmm

[bogie]

Wouldn't it be funny if all the file were fake? Ie they either used that Kazaa cheating program which makes it seem like you have more files then you do, or they just renamed some text files Brittney_Spear_mp3.

Also true story. My girlfriend was at a wedding recently in Washington(I couldn't make it). On both sides of her were two lawyers. One worked for MS the other for the RIAA. She said they were lucky I wasn't there :-). Actually she said they were both very nice, and she mentioned to the RIAA guy about downloading music. The one thing he said besides explaining about some madeup revenue losses is that in the coming year aka now, the RIAA was going to go full tilt against private citizens who share their files on peer2peer programs. Now I know this is a big "no shit", but this was from someone in the thick of it and he said suits against individuals was going to become VERY common as opposed to suits against just the networks. So take it FWIW, but if your still sharing mp3's on Kazaa etc you may be in for more than you bargined for.

Re:Hmmm

[starseeker]

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.

Re:DMCA Reality

[Frobnicator]

i'm surprised it hasn't been challenged yet.

Several sections have been challenged, but none successfully. Whenever the EFF and other groups get 'good' cases, those that the high courts would use to turn over the law, the media giants ask the court for a settlement.

This isn't a bad thing

[Illserve]

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.

Re:600 a day?

[Ioldanach]

I don't see how that's possible. That means 25 songs an hour, which is like a song every two minutes. Assuming you've got a broadband connection with the bandwidth to download a song in 2 minutes, how do you go about finding someone else willing to serve it at that rate, every two minutes? ... snip ...

His machine was the server, not the client. Put a machine with a few popular songs on any sharing network and you're likely to saturate your outgoing bandwith constantly. So yes, he could've shared 600 songs in a day, by uploading them. Of course, whether he actually uploaded 600 songs in one day isn't necessary here, since they might only be claiming he made 600 songs available over the course of one day. Thus, if he'd ripped 50 cds he owned and put them up on a network, suddenly one could argue that he's sharing 600 songs.

Of course, if I were his lawyer, I'd ask to see the copies they downloaded of each song to verify that the songs were really the song the filename said it was. After all, if they didn't check, how do they know the songs weren't garbage. (Aside from the fact that they hired the artists and know first-hand that the music was garbage.)

Seriously, though, as usual the slashdot article was just a little off. It should've read he served or uploaded 600 files in a single day.

So go ahead...sue me!

[mestes1999]

In recent weeks I have had KaZaa open 24/7 for sharing. Not 600 files, I share over 3000 files, simply to thumb my nose at these zealots.

With this said, let us take into consideration a suit by the RIAA against me, given that they get my name and information. A cease and desist letter? Sure, I'd probably cease, but what if I continued to share?

I'm a senior in college. I own a crappy car, rent an apartment, and have quite low income. So what then? What will they get if they sue me? Nearly nothing. They can have my student loan, my car, and my apt. Kick me off my ISP, I'll find another.

The RIAA seems to not understand that civil lawsuits mean nothing to those who have nothing. This means most college students. This means most of the file sharers.

Do you think I'd be downloading all the free music I want if I could afford it? (Yes, probably, but I'm just making a point)

Re:So go ahead...sue me!

[base3]

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.

Caller ID : RIAA

[keller999]

"Now that the court has ordered Verizon to live up to its obligation under the law, we look forward to contacting the account holder whose identity we were seeking so we can let them know that what they are doing is illegal."

RIAA : Now we know that you didn't know that all of this was illegal, so we're not going to press charges, sue you, or suck every last penny out of your lifeless corpse that we can under (over?) the law. We're just friendly people who want the best for the consumers!

Yeah, right...

on subponeas

[frovingslosh]

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.

One should really be asking, why in hell would Verizon even have captured that information in the first place? If they didn't have the information, they couldn't be forced to turn it over.

As to the subpoena, how can they get a subpoena to gain information about a customer who may have done nothing wrong? I hold in my hand a box of CDR marked "CD-R DA", "Digital Audio", "for Music Use". I've paid an extra tax that goes right to the music industry because they expect me to use these CDRs to record copyrighted audio onto them. How can I be doing anything that merits a subpoena and invades my privacy if they have already accepted my money based on the expectation I will record music on these CDRs?

I hope his isn't the only wave of Subpoenas that Verizon is dreading. I sure want to see the subpoenas flooding in when people want to know why the hell Verizon snooped on their Internet use and logged this.

Re:They're monitoring P2P, not sniffing the intern

[cybermace5]

Does anyone else think the subject size limit worked out REALLY funny this time?

Potential Violations != Violations

[_bug_]

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?

Re:Potential Violations != Violations

[DeepRedux]

Copyright violations can be either criminal or civil. It is much easy to prove a civil case.

Sharing of MP3s from CDs that you own is a copyright violation. This was made clear in the my.mp3.com case. It does not matter if either or both parties own the CD. The possible penalty for sharing a registered copyrighted work is $30K per work (per song offered, not per song downloaded).

The $30K figure is for statutory damages. Statutory damages can be awarded even if it is not shown that any one actually made any money or that the owner lost any money or even that the violation was willful. If the copyright owner can prove any of these, the amount can be higher. Statutory damages for willful copyright violations are up to $150K per work.

Sharing because of a misconfigured P2P setup may not be willful, but is still probably a violation. The final determination is, of course, up to the judge or jury. Adding warnings like, RIAA keep out! could help the RIAA show that the violation was willful. The disclaimer that you propose is basically what my.mp3.com tried and they had to pay huge amount in damages.

CNN terminology problem?

[geekee]

From reading a similar article on CNET, I think CNN is mistaken in saying the person DOWNLOADED 600 songs in one day. I think it's more likely he UPLOADED 600 songs to various other people in one day, which is why the RIAA is interested in him.

Why Verizon fights.....

[MadAnthony02]

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.

Maybe not. When companies recieve subpoenas, they often recieve some reimbursement for copying charges and the like.

My thought for the reason that Verizon was against this is because, as much as they don't want to admit it, P2P music sharing is broadband's killer app. Sure, they can brag that you can load pages faster, not have a second phone line, and that you can watch streaming video, but the main reason many people get broadband is p2p music piracy. If the RIAA makes it hard for people to use p2p, or makes broadband providers block p2p, Verizon will have fewer customers, and hence smaller PROFITS! It's one of those cases where what's good for the company is also good for the customer

Leave the RIAA alone

[Billly Gates]

We all know from unbaised sourcesthat the RIAA is going out of bussiness. An executive in the article even admitted that some record companies may even go out of bussiness because a mere %6 loss is sooo much money! Thats %94 of the income thats only still there. OMG how horrible. This is from CNN the ultimate unbaised news from AOL-TIME-WARNER.

The RIAA produces the best music in the world like Nsync, Britney Spears, and uh, uh well my mind is blank right now on any new bands. But anyway since the bands listed above are such high caliber and will be remembered for centuries to come like Mozart and The beatles I am sure piracy has to be the real reason.

After all the RIAA is such a popular group of friendly, ethical, and hard working folks that consumers just love to buy from. They would have no incentive to boycut anyway. After all nobody even used napster back in 99 when they made record profits. Morpheous is so much more popular today and I am the big retailers are also hurting do to piracy. What they made money??? Well, uh I am sure its really still piracy. The economy is so strong right now and music is priced so low that it should just be flying off the shelves.

Poor RIAA they are the true ethical and honest victims of piracy.

THe RIAA

[netcoyote]

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?

Fight fire with fire...

[dcavanaugh]

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.

Re:Darn you RIAA

[kien]

I can understand why you feel that way. From michael's summary of the article:

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.

While that's probably not entirely false, this is from the main article referenced:

"Verizon is not attempting to shield customers who break copyright laws," said Sarah B. Deutsch, vice president and associate general counsel for Verizon. "We are, however, seeking to protect the fundamental privacy and due process rights that should be afforded to our customers and all Internet users."

Sounds principled enough to me. I'll leave the conspiracy theory that it's just a public front to the conspiracy theorists.

--K.

Re:Another news flash...

[privacyt]

There are lots of tax-free places to put your money, such as tax-free municipal bonds. When he ran in 1992, Ross Perot was criticized for paying only 8% of his income in taxes, but he did it quite legally because most of his income was from his tax-free municipal bonds.

Incidentally, the Bush Administartion is pushing to eliminate tax on stock dividends. How's that for a free giveaway for the rich?

There is no wealth tax in the USA. There is only an income tax. Additionally, it is possible to increase your wealth (such as with the tax-free muni bonds that I mentioned) without getting taxed.

I think the poster two levels up brings up a great point that the income tax is really a shield to make it difficult for hard-working people to join the ranks of the wealthy. (Keep in mind that the income tax is a tax on money earned from work, while dividends and interest are money earned by merely sitting on your butt.)

Re:Another news flash...

[Sgt York]

There is only an income tax and capital gains, estate, gift, employment, and excise. If you include state level taxes, you also have the various sales & property taxes. There are even federal sales taxes; gasoline, tobacco, & alcohol.

As for elimiation of tax on stock divdends, that's not just for the rich. I have stocks, and I'm poor. It's nice to have your money work for you, for a change.

When are people going to wakeup ?!?!

[Ironpoint]

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.

Ranks of the wealthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no "ranks" of the wealthy. At least not by your definition.

Fact is most americans are fucking rich as hell. People who complain about income tax keeping them down are such fucking whiners. "ohhh that big bad millionare only pays $80,000 a year, and here I am having to pay $20,000!"

Fact is, you don't have to pay that $20,000. You can tie up your funds too, it's just a question of knowing the tax law and a willingness to "invest" your money.

People are so ready to bitch about somone else having more. Seriously though, look at what you do have... we're all in the top 10% bracket in wealthiness in the world.

Face it, we're the rich bastards that make the laws. We're the ones that opress others with our so called "FreeMarket".
Sometimes we opress ourselves, but face it, we're the bad guys.

Take it in already: STOP STEALING!!!!

[borgheron]

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

Re:The Problem is Slashdotters are Ignorant.

[Melantha_Bacchae]

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).

That explains a lot!

[dark_day]

...now those "your computer is broadcasting an IP address" banner ads make sense ;)